Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
10/05/1982 - City Council Regular
REGULAR MEETING EAGAN CITY COUNCIL EAGAN, MINNESOTA CITY HALL OCTOBER 5, 1982 6:30 P.M. AGENDA I. 6:30 — ROLL CALL & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. 6:33 — ADOPT AGENDA & APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. 6:35 — DEPARTMENT HEAD BUSINESS V1 A. Fire Department ,1 B. Police Department ,7•k C. Park Department 1 D. Public Works Department e IV. 6:55 — CONSENT ITEMS (One motion approves all items) { A. Conditional Use Permit Renewals : 7 B. Contract 82-7, Change Order #1, Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition �•� C. Safari at Eagan Erosion Control/Clean Up Q $ D. General Election Judges Qj0 E. Withdraw Cedar Bluff townhouse Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bond Project V. 7:00 — PUBLIC HEARINGS 1'l A. Project #297—R, Public Hearing, Blackhawk Lake Trunk Storm F, Sewer (Bryant, Horne and Ashfeld) ?%S B. Project #361, Wescott Road Sanitary Sewer 110 C. Project #364, Brittany Fourth Addition, Trunk Water Main i A1.D. Project #365, Northview Meadows First Addition, Trunk Sewer & Water 0E. Cable Television RFP (Request for Proposals) P� VI. OLD BUSINESS �1•q3 A. Consideration of a Wind Energy System & Radio/TV Tower Ordinance 1� (UL B. David R. & Patricia B. Odell for Preliminary Plat, Odell's Addition, Consisting of Approximately One Acre & Containing 2 Single Family Lots in Part of Lot 2, McCarthy Ridge Addition, Section 9 4.,110 C. Gabbert Development, Inc., for a Preliminary Plat, Sheffield Addition, Consisting of Approximately 11.36 Acres and Containing 44 Single Family Lots Located in Part of the E' of the SE'k of Section 26 .i3•� D. Extension of Time for Preliminary Plat of Lexington Place E. Consideration of a Subdivision Ordinance ,ek%l F. Establish Mill Rate Certification Payable 1983 0 0 Eagan City Council Agenda October 5, 1982 Page Two VII. NEW BUSINESS ply A. Peace Reformed Church, Building Addition/Site Plan on Nicols Road Paul R. Larson for Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PD (Planned QDevelopment) to Allow a Townhouse and Single Family Development and preliminary plat, Blackhawk Oaks, Consisting of Townhouse Units and Single Family Lots in Part of the NE'k of the NE'k of Section 20 �,.150C. Final Plat Consideration for Brittany Fourth Addition 153-D. Final Plat Consideration for Oakwood Heights ltE. Consideration of a Nuisance Ordinance e.�by F. E. L. Murphy/Extension of Time for I. R. Financing VIII. ADDITIONAL ITEMS e, 164 A. Contract 82-12, Approve Plans and Specifications/Order Advertisement for Bids (Brittany Fourth Addition & Safari Reservoir — Trunk Water Main Q ldtr B. Stop Sign Petition, Sigfrid Street at Sequoia Drive C. Stop Sign Request, Federal Drive & Washington Drive ?*111D. *1 14% D. Grading/Excavation Permit, Sheffield Addition (Gabbert Development) 1 IX. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (For those persons not on the agenda) X. ADJOURNMENT i MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1982 SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION After approval of the September 21, 1982 regular City Council minutes and the October 5, 1982 City Council agenda, the following items are in order for consideration: DEPARTMENT HEAD BUSI—NE-771 FIRE DEPARTMENT A. Fire Department -- There are no items to be discussed for the Fire Department at this time. POLICE DEPARTMENT B. Police Department -- There are no items to be discussed for the Police Department at this time. PARK DEPARTMENT C. Park Department -- There are no items to be discussed for the Park Department at this time. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT D. Public Works Department -- Item #1: Traffic Signal Installation Cliff Road with Galax Avenue ackhawk Roa intersection -- Cliff t e recent re ocation o tie a axy Avenue intersection with Cliff Road necessitated by the forthcoming construction of I -35E, the engineering department has growing concerns pertaining to ade- quate traffic control and traffic safety at this newly created four way intersection of Blackhawk Road/Galaxy Avenue with Cliff Road. It is anticipated that this will become a major intersection resulting from the following facts: 1. Cliff Road traffic volume is steadily increasing and recently has witnessed a jump in traffic volumes due to its being a designated detour for the traffic from Apple Valley due to the southerly extension of the Cedar Avenue Freeway. Present traffic volumes are estimated at approximately 20,000 vehicles per day through this intersection. 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Two It is anticipated Road to the Apple mately November 1. that Galaxy Avenue upgrading from Cliff Valley border will be completed by approxi - The proposed upgrading of Blackhawk Road between Cliff Road and County Road 30 is expected to be performed during 1983. 4. During 1983/84, construction of the interchange of I -35E with County Road 30 necessitates that Blackhawk Road be designated a detour route for County Road 30. Proposed completion of upgrading Galaxy Avenue through Apple Valley is expected to promote greater traffic volumes onto Galaxy Avenue and ultimately through this intersection. Based on these concerns, Representative Carolyn Rodriguez and the Apple Valley City Council have expressed concerns pertaining to traffic safety at this intersection. On September 29, a meeting was held with Dakota County, Apple Valley, Eagan and MnDOT per- taining to potential signalization of this intersection. Through the efforts of Representative Rodriguez, MnDOT is willing to provide the signal head and controller cabinet hardware for the signaliza- tion of this intersection, even through present MnDOT policy does not provide for MnDOT participation at the intersection of a county road with a local city street. Because of the forthcoming con- struction of the interchange of I -35E with Cliff Road, any signali- zation performed at this intersection would have to be performed in two stages to coincide with the upgrading of Cliff Road due to I -35E. Subsequently, Dakota County has indicated that they would be willing to present a resolution from the City Council requesting signalization of this intersection if the City of Eagan would be willing to participate in its 50% fair share for the cost of signalization. The estimated cost of providing the phase one signalization with MnDOT providing the signal head and controller cabinet hardware is estimated at $25,000 with the City of Eagan's responsibility being $12,500. The earliest that this signalization could be in operation is January of 1983. However, winter con- struction may delay its operation until April of 1983. Dakota County estimates that phase two construction of permanent signali- zation at this intersection could be accomplished in late 1984 at an estimated cost at that time of $80,000 of which the City's responsibility would be $40,000. There would be no MnDOT participa- tion in the second phase construction. Therefore, in order for the County to pursue potential signalization of this intersection, they indicate that it is necessary for the City Council to formally approve the resolution enclosed on page he indicating their concurrence to participate in the cost associate with this project. 9- 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Three They have indicated any delay in consideration of this will elimi- nate the potential for having the first phase in operation by Jan- uary of 1983. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny a resolu- tion for participation with Dakota County for the signalization of the intersection of Cliff Road with Galaxy Avenue/Blackhawk Road. 3 • CITY OF EAGAN • RESOLUTION TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION COUNTY ROAD 32 (CLIFF ROAD) WITH GALAXY AVENUE/BLACKHAWK ROAD WHEREAS, the traffic volumes on County Road 32 (Cliff Road) is presently estimated at 20,000 A.D.T. and expected to in- crease; and WHEREAS, MnDOT will be awarding a contract for the con- struction of I -35E interchange with County Road 32 (Cliff Road); and WHEREAS, Galaxy Avenue from Apple Valley to County Road 32 (Cliff Road) will be completed and open to traffic by November 1982; and WHEREAS, Blackhawk Road from County Road 30 (Diffley Road) to County Road 32 (Cliff Road) is anticipated to be upgraded and designated as a detour for County Road 30 from fall 1983 to 1985; and WHEREAS, the City of Apple Valley is presently using County Road 32 (Cliff Road) and is expected to use Galaxy Avenue as a detour for construction of T.H. 77 and County Road 23, thereby. increasing traffic volumes through this intersection; and WHEREAS, MnDOT will provide the signal heads and control- ler cabinet hardware for the first phase of this signalization; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eagan that Dakota County is hereby requested to prepare a cost participation agreement between the City and the County to provide for temporary and ultimate permanent installation of signals at the intersection of County Road 32 (Cliff Road) with Galaxy Avenue south of Blackhawk Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Dakota County is hereby re- quested to initiate phase one of this signalization installation at the earliest possible date. Motion by: Seconded by: Members in favor: Members opposed: ATTEST: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF EAGAN City erMayor 19 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Four Item #2: Major Intersection Streetlight Installation -- On Septem- err T, the mit L�directe sta to review t e major intersec- tion streetlight installation program to compare the staff's priori- ty listing in relationship to those locations that have specifically been requested by residents of the community. While keeping in mind the 1982 budget for streetlight installation of $7,000, a modified list has been prepared and is enclosed on page (o for the Council's information. This is a listing of the t�3 priority locations as defined by staff. Those locations that staff has received specific requests from residents for are so noted by the asterisk (*). This table provides two different monthly energizing rates together with the different amounts of capital contribution by the City for both Dakota Electric Association (DEA) and Nothern States Power (NSP) facilities. As can be seen, through the various combinations of City "up front" contributions, any different number of streetlights can be installed. A major factor for consideration is the cost savings on the monthly energy rate as compared to the additional installation costs. With DEA, if the City provides the additional $500 installation cost, it will incur a $1.60 a month energy rate saving at today's rates. Exclu- ding interest considerations, this results in a 26 -year "buy back" before the City could realize any cost savings based on today's differential in the present rate structure. For NSP, it is a 20- 22 year "buy back" period before any reasonable cost savings could be incurred. If the interest factor were to be taken into consi- deration, this "buy back" period would approximately double. Based on this information, staff would recommend that the City provide limited contribution on installation costs, assume the higher month- ly energy rate and install all of the streetlights at major inter- sections presently designated during 1982. This would result in a reduction of the proposed $8,000 for capital expenditures for installation of major intersection streetlights proposed for the 1983 budget to approximately $2,000. This will also eliminate the City's maintenance responsibilities for these streetlights due to any damage or vandalism that may occur because they will be under the ownership and maintenance of the utility company. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To review the major intersec- tion streetlight installation recommendations and authorize staff to proceed accordingly. Ir CH *Citizen requested installation DEA NSP No City Contribution City Contribution NSP.Installed City Installed LOCATION BY PRIORITY Cost Rate Cost Rate Cost Rate Cost Rate 1. Blackhawk Road & Silver Bell Road 135.00 7.75 635.00 6.15 * 2. Pilot Knob Road & Deerwood Drive 180.00 9.25 680.00 7.65 * 3. Cliff Road & Galaxie/Blackhawk 180.00 9.25 680.00 7.65 * 4. Malmo Place and County Road 30 180.00 9.25 680.00 7.65 5. McCarthy Road and Highway 13 250.00 10.80 1,950.00 3.80 6. Pilot Knob Road and Wescott Road 180.00 9.25 680.00 7.65 • * 7. Lexington Ave. and Wescott Road 180.00 9.25 680.00 7.65 * 8. Nicols Road and Shale lane 450.00 10.80 1,950.00 3.80 * 9. Eagan Industrial Rd and Pilot Knob Rd. 60.00 10.80 1,950.00 3.80 *10. Pilot Knob Rd. & Lakeside Drive 180.00 9.25 680.00 7.65 11. Blackhawk Rd. & Deerwood Dr. 180.00 9.25 680.00 7.65 *12. Pilot Knob Rd. and Englert Rd. 65.00 7.75 565.00 6.15 *13. Yankee Doodle Rd. & Coachman Rd. 250.00 10.80 1,950.00 3.80 SUB -TOTAL $1,460.00 $80.25 5,960.00 $65.85 $1,010.00 $43.20 $7,800.00 $15.20 14. Pilot Knob & Sigfrid 250.00 7.75 750.00 6.15 15. Cliff Road & Slater Road 11100.00 9.25 1,600.00 7.65 a 16. Wescott Road & Elrene Road 65.00 7.75 565.00 6.15 17. Lone Oak Road & Egan Avenue 220.00 10.80 1,950.00 3.80 18. Yankee Doodle Rd. & Elrene Rd 110.00 7.75 610.00 6.15 19. Blackhawk Rd & Turquoise Trail 180.00 9.25 680.00 7.65 CUMMULATIVE SUB -TOTAL $3,165.00 $122.00 10,165.0 $99.60 $1,230.00 $54.00 $9,750.00 $19.0 0 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Five CONSENT AGENDA' There are five (5) items on the agenda referred to as consent items requiring one (1) motion by the City Council. If the City Council desires to discuss any of the items in further detail, those items should be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed under Additional Items unless the discussion required is brief. CONDITIONAL.USE PERMIT RENEWALS A. Conditional Use Permit Renewals -- Two (2) conditional use permit renewals are in order for consideration: 1. Alfred Wiger, 780 Blue Gentian Road, for a group therapy facility, and 2. Orvilla Homes, 3430 Wescott Hills Drive, for a group home. Both conditional use permits are in order for consideration. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the conditional use permit renewals as described. CONTRACT 82-7, CHANGE ORDER B. Contract 82-7, Change Order #1,' Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition Zachman Homes, the developer of the Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition, has indicated that he will not complete his grading in accordance with the approved plan that was submitted in accordance with the final plat for the Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition. Subsequently, because this grading was necessary to allow the installation of the required utilities to service Outlots B, C, and D of the third addition, this utility work has to be deleted from Contract 82- 7. Therefore, Part A provides for the deletion of $19,520 from the contract. Because the omitted work modifies the scope of the project, the contractor has submitted a claim accordingly; this will result in an addition of $6,000 to the contract. In summary, it will cost $6,000 to delete $19,520 work resulting in a net change order of $13,520 to be deducted from the original contract amount. Both items have been reviewed and approved by the contractor and developer. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve Change Order #1 to Contract 82-7 in the amount of a net deduct of $13,520. 0 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Six SAFARI AT EAGAN EROSION CONTROL C. Safari at Eagan Erosion Control/Clean Up -- There has been extensive erosion taking place within the Safari at Eagan subdivi- sion which is resulting in sediments being deposited within the street area and being washed into the storm sewer system. Formal notification has been forwarded to the developer, Mr. Byron Watchke, with no response to date. Therefore, the staff has notified Mr. Watchke by certified mail that the staff will be requesting Council authorization to have the necessary work performed and to file a claim against the bonding company for this development. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To authorize City staff to perform the necessary clean up and restoration to eliminate the present erosion problems within the Safari at Eagan subdivision and to bill the developer through his bonding company for all costs incurred. GENERAL ELECTION JUDGES D. General Election Judges -- During the summer, a list of election judges was approved by the City Council for the primary and general election. The City Clerk feels there will be need for additional judges at the primary election and therefore is recommending fifteen (15) persons to be included as general election judges. Enclosed on page T— is a copy of the list as prepared by the City Clerk. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the list of addi- tional election judges for the general election as presented. [.] 0 ADDITIONAL JUDGES FOE GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 2, 1982' i DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS Joan Grimsrud Vi Gehrke Carolyn Thurston Ruth Ohmann Linda O'Brien Mildred Beck Alyce Bolke Marge Shadduck Bill Reid Joan Bohlig Delores Johnson Carol Hammond Diane Kukowski Joan Wachter INDEPENDENT Marie DesLauriers F' Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Seven CEDARBLUFF TOWNHOME MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS E. Withdrawal of Cedar Bluff Townhouse Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bond Project -- The City has received a letter from Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc., a copy of which is enclosed on page �j , notifying the City that the Cedar Bluff Townhouse $9,000,000 multifamily mortgage revenue bond issue has been withdrawn for further consideration from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. The reason the revenue bond issue was withdrawn is due to the fact that the project owner and developer is not willing to commit the $180,000 as a project commitment. As you recall, Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc., and the City Council felt the developer should contribute some amount of money similar to that of a letter of credit for public improvement projects to assure some participation in the project. Apparently, Mr. Michaelson was not willing to contribute and therefore the application was withdrawn. The City Administrator will prepare a letter to all persons who were in attendance at the public hearing following the action by the City Council to accept for the record the fact that the application was withdrawn. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the withdrawal of the Cedar Bluff Townhouse $9,000,000 multifamily mortgage revenue bond application as submitted to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. 1-0 Toll Free Minnesota (800) 862-6002 • Toll Free Other States (800) 328{122 0 Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. Northwestern Financial Center, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 • (612) 831-1500 September 23, 1982 Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Tom: We are so sorry that the Cedar Bluff Townhouse people could not meet the conditions we agreed were necessary for the City of Eagan to ob- tain bonding authority from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Thank you for the cooperation we received from you and from the Eagan City Council. Paul and I would like to have the opportunity to ex- plain what happened to the Eagan Council. Again, our apologies and thanks. Sincerely, ndrea Lubov AL/ad Enclosure Headquarters Minneapolis. Minnesota Branch Offices: Downtown Min neopolis • Solana Beach, Cali lomia • Northbrook. Illinois • St Pat 1, Minnesota • Naples. Florida • Carson City. Nevada Mem,er of Ike Secunnvs Im,aor pror�ceon Corporation 0 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Eight PROJECT #297-K A. Project #297-R, Public Hearing, Blackhawk Lake Trunk Storm Sewer (Bryant, Horne and Ashfeld) -- At the September 7 Council meeting, the City Council formally vacated the final assessment roll for storm sewer area assessments due to procedural deficiencies for the following described property and ordered a new public hearing process to be initiated at the October 5, 1982 Council meeting: 1. Floyd & Victoria Bryant, Parcel #10-02100-010-04 2. David Ashfeld, Parcel #10-02100-010-02 James Horne, Lot 7, Block 1, Kingswood Addition 4. Horne Development Corporation, Lots 1-6, 8-10, Outlots 1- 3, Kingswood Addition, and Parcel #10-02100-010-01 All aspects of this public hearing are identical to those that were presented at the original public hearing held on May 20, 1980. This project provides for the installation of trunk area storm sewer improvements for the Blackhawk Lake drainage basin. Trunk area storm sewer assessment rates are those that were in effect in 1980 (3.4¢ per square foot). Because the improvement has already been completed and the final assessment rates will not change, it would be appropriate to schedule the final assessment hearing date for November 9, 1982. If any of the Council would like copies of the original feasibility report for Project #297, please inform the staff and they will be forwarded to your attention prior to the meeting. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing for Project #297-R, approve the project, receive the final assess- ment roll and schedule the final assessment hearing to be held on November 9, 1982. 1� 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Nine PROJECT #361 40 $. Project #361, Wescott Road - Trunk Sanitary Sewer -- In response to a petition received from several developers representing approxi- mately 310 acres of land, the City Council on June 15 authorized the preparation of a detailed feasibility report for providing trunk sanitary sewer to the intersection of Wescott Road and Lexing- ton Avenue. The assessment area for this project was determined by present policy' of assessing all property within z mile of the trunk system. However, this trunk assessment area was expanded to incorporate all property owned by several of the developers who had petitioned for this improvement. On September 30, an infor- mational meeting was held at City Hall for all affected property owners explaining the project and the potential assessments asso- ciated with it. There were no major objections from the twelve people in attendance. The following major points should be taken into consideration under this project: 1. This trunk sanitary sewer project is necessary for the pro- gression of the previously approved preliminary plat for the Windcrest Addition and the Lexington Place Subdivision. 2. This project will involve acquisition of extensive easements through the Pat McCarthy property which will more than likely have to be acquired through condemnation. 3. One of the major petitioners (Sienna Corporation) has ex- pressed concerned for ; the proposed lateral benefit of the assessment associated with this trunk project. The consulting engineer, Bob Rosene, will be available to discuss the details involved with this project at the public hearing held on Tuesday. A copy of the report is enclosed on pages _ - through$.7 ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing and approve or deny Project #361 for the installation of trunk sanitary sewer to Wescott Road at Lexington Avenue. 13 0 0 REPORT ON WESCOTT TRUNK SANITARY SEWER PROJECT 361 m EAGAN, MINNESOTA 1982 FILE N0. 49256 Box" iroa, 2oseae, f4a&4" 9 fYd"cia&.d, .lac. 81 Pam4 Mbrwao& /If 0 2335 ?d. 'I ..,A eVyi..ay 36 St. Par. 55»3 PA.., 6J2-636-4600 July 23, 1982 City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Mn. 55122 Attn: Mr. Tom Colbert Re: Wescott Trunk Sanitary Sewer Project 361 Our File No. 49256 Dear Mayor and Council: Ono G. B..'l . P.E. Ro l W. Ronin. P.E. Jowh C Aadrrlik. P.E. Bmdlord A. L mhq, P.E. Rlrhard E T.m,,. P.E. James Cl Mm P.E. Ghmn R. C.k, P E. Kalh A. Gr don. P E. Thomat E. Norm P.E. R(aha.d W. Am. P.E. Rohn G. Schunirhl, P E. Marvin I...Wmlp. P.E. Oaaald C. Rur,oldl, P.E. Jaq A. fimMon. P.E. Mark A. Hamom P.Y.. Ted R. Y'iNd. P. E. MxWd T R.I.... P.E. Omlks A. Niekson Lm M. Pawhky Horton M. ob.. Oerid E. Oban Transmitted herewith is our report for Wescott Trunk Sanitary Sewer, Project 361. This report covers trunk sanitary sewer construction within the Central Dis- trict, Subdistrict C -MM as designated in the 1982 Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan for the City of Eagan. We will be pleased to meet with the council and other interested parties at a mutually convenient time to discuss this report. Yours very truly, BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDEgLFK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Mar A. Hanson MAH:li I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional En 'neer under the lawsofthe State of Minneso Mark A. HansorV Date: �I [,2�. lC r l� Z --Reg. No. L Approved by:'Jf' Nomas A. Colbert Director of Public Works Date: 0786b ES 0 0 WESCOTT TRUNK SANITARY SEWER SCOPE: This project provides for construction of trunk sanitary sewer within subdistrict C -MM in the Central District. as designated in the 1982 Comprehen- sive Sewer Policy Plan for the City of Eagan. Preparation of this feasibility report is the result of a petition re- ceived from three developers in the proposed service area. FEASIBLITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This project is feasible and is in accordance with the 1982 Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan for the City of Eagan. The proj- ect as outlined herein can be carried out as one contract. Estimated project costs presented herein are based on anticipated soil conditions and preliminary alignment considerations. Costs assiciated with easement acquisition are estimates based on results from previous hearings. It is recommended an addendum to this report be prepared prior to approval of plans and specifications outlining more definite costs based on soil boring results and the final alignment. Cost associated with easement acquisition will be known and will be included to reflect an accurate project cost. DISCUSSION: For purposes of discussion this report is separated into two parts. Each part is listed as follows: A. Lift Station and Force Main B. Trunk Gravity Sanitary Sewer A. LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN: It is proposed to construct a lift station at the westerly end of Windcrest Addition and adjacent to the westerly side of Pond JP -6. The lift station will pump through a 12 inch force main located along the westerly line of Windcrest Addition and discharge into an existing 0786b Page 1. 16 0 0 15 inch sanitary sewer at Deerwood Drive. It is also proposed to construct a 10 foot wide gravel drive over the force main to provide access to the lift station in the event development of Windcrest Addition is not scheduled. The proposed lift station will ultimately provide service to 1,100 acres. St. Francis Wood 2nd Addition is the only development which presently exists in the immediate area excepting a few scattered homes and farms. Potential developments, however, are being considered for approximately 250 acres which represents 25% of the service area. The ultimate lift station will be a three pump station with a wet well and dry well. It is recommended as part of this project only two pumps be installed and the third pump be installed in the future as needed. B. TRUNK SANITARY SEWER: Trunk sanitary sewer proposed herein includes con- struction of an 18 inch and 15 inch sanitary sewer from the proposed lift sta- tion to Lexington Avenue at Wescott Road. The proposed alignment is shown on the attached drawing at the back of this report. The alignment of the trunk sanitary sewer follows adjacent to Ponds JP -6 and JP -10, as designated in the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan for the City of Eagan. The proposed alignment between each pond follows through well defined ravines. The depth of the san- itary sewer in its deepest location is 48 feet. The proposed sanitary sewer alignment follows adjacent to William Brothers Pipeline at various locations. The distance between the pipeline and the san- itary sewer will vary dependent on the depth of sanitary sewer at a given lo- cation. 0786b Page 2. 17 AREA TO BE INCLUDED: ASSESSMENT AREA SECTION 14 NW 1/4 Parcel 010-28 Parcel 010-29 SW 1/4 Parcel 010-52 Parcel 030-53 Parcel 041-53 Parcel 043-53 Parcel 044-53 Parcel 050-53 WILLIAM 6 LARUE ADDITION Lot 1, 2, 3, 4, Blk. 1 SECTION 15 SE 1/4 Parcel 010-76 ST. FRANCIS WOOD ADDITION Outlot A, B, and C SECTION 22 NE 1/4 Parcel 011-01 Parcel 012-01 Parcel 010-02 Parcel 011-04 SE 1/4 Parcel 011-85 Parcel 011-86 SW 1/4 Parcel 014-54 Parcel 015-54 CONSTRUCTION AREA SECTION 15 SE 1/4 Parcel 010-76 SECTION 22 NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Parcel 016-54 Parcel 040-51 Parcel 050-51 Parcel 060-51 NW 1/4 Parcel 011-25 - Windcrest Addition 0786b Page 3. /9, Parcel 010-01 Parcel 010-04 Parcel 011-25 Windcrest Addn. 0 0 SECTION 23 NW 1/4 Parcel 010-27 Parcel 010-28 Parcel 011-26 Parcel 012-25 Parcel 013-25 Parcel 014-25 SW 1/4 Parcel 010-50 Parcel 010-51 Parcel 020-50 COST ESTIMATE: Detailed cost estimates are presented at the back of this re- port. A summary of these costs are as follows: A. Lift Station and Force Main $187,900 B. Trunk Gravity Sanitary Sewer 499,140 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST ......... $687,040 The total estimated project cost as outlined herein including contingen- cies and all related overhead is $687,040. Overhead costs are estimated at 27% and include legal, engineering, administration and bond interest. EASEMENTS: It is assumed easements required for construction of sanitary sewer within Windcrest Addition (Parcel 011-25, Section 22) and Lexington South, Inc. (Parcel 011-01, Section 22) will be acquired at no cost. It is assumed, however, easement costs will be incurred through McCarthy's property (Parcel 011-04, Section 22). Costs associated with acquisition of permanent easement is estimated at $8,000/acre while temporary construction easement is estimated at $5,000/acre. A summary of these costs are as follows: Parcel Owner Permanent Temporary Est'd. Cost SECTION 22 NE 1/4 - Parcel 011-04 McCarthy 1.3 Acres 6.5 Acres 42,900 TOTAL EASEMENT ......... $42,900 0786b Page 4. L7 0 0 ASSESSMENTS: Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited property as shown on the attached drawing. A preliminary assessment roll is included at the back of this report. It is proposed to assess the area as outlined on the attached drawing for trunk area sanitary sewer oversize. It is also proposed to assess lateral benefit from trunk sanitary sewer per front foot for each side of the trunk sewer that is benefited. The trunk sanitary sewer area rate and the lateral benefit from trunk sanitary sewer rate will be based on rates in effect at the time of the public hearing and will not be affected by the actual costs of the project. A summary of these rates at the time of this report are as follows: Trunk Sanitary Sewer Oversize - Unplatted $995/acre - Platted Residential $475/Lot Lateral Service from Trunk Sanitary Sewer $16.00/front ft. REVENUE SOURCES: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this project are as follows: SANITARY SEWER Project Cost Trunk Sanitary Sewer $687,040.00 Trunk Area Assessment Lateral Benefit from Trunk San. Sewer Easement 42,900.00 $729,940.00 0786b Page 5. Zo Revenue $449,421.15 122,400.00 Balance $571,821.15 -$158,118.85 0 0 It is estimated $158,118.85 will be required from the trunk fund to fi- nance this project. It should also be noted that revenue for lateral benefit from trunk sanitary sewer and trunk area sanitary sewer in the amount of $102,600 is indicated for Parcel 011-04, Section 22 which it is anticipated condemnation will be required for easement acquisition. PROJECT SCHEDULE Present Feasibility Report September 7, 1982 Public Hearing October 5, 1982 Approve Plans and Specifications Oct./Nov., 1982 Open Bids Nov./Dec., 1982 Award Contract December, 1982 Construction Completion Summer, 1983 Assessment Hearing September, 1983 First Payment Due with Real Estate Taxes May, 1984 Page 6. 0786b 2( 0 0 WESCOTT TRUNK SANITARY SEWER COST ESTIMATE PROJECT 361 A. LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN LUMP SUM 1.4 MGD lift station @ $110,000.00/L.S. $110,000 850 Lin.ft. 12" DIP force main @ $22.00/lin.ft. 18,700 1 Each Air release manhole @ $1,500.00/each 1,500 LUMP SUM Clear and grub trees @ $4,000.00/L.S. 4,000 1 Each Connect 12" force main to existing MH @ $500.00/each 500 600 Ton Cl. 2 crushed limestone for access drive @ $7.00/ton 4,200 1.0 Acre Seed with topsoil and mulch @ $2,000.00/acre 2,000 Total $140,900 +5% Contingencies 7,050 $147,950 +27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. b Bond Interest 39i50 A. TOTAL LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN ............. $187,900 B. TRUNK SANITARY SEWER 100 Lin.ft. 18" Sanitary sewer, 0'-10' dp. in pl. @ $30.00/lin.ft. $ 3,000 530 Lin.ft. 18" Sanitary sewer, 10'-15' dp. in pl. @ $35.00/lin.ft. 18,550 800 Lin.ft. 18" Sanitary sewer, 15'-20' dp, in pl. @ $40.00/lin.ft. 32,000 850 Lin.ft. 18" Sanitary sewer, 20'-25' dp. in pl. @ $45.00/lin.ft. 38,250 410 Lin.ft. 18" Sanitary sewer, 25'-30' dp. in pl. @ $55.00/lin.ft. 22,550 330 Lin.ft. 18" Sanitary sewer, 30'-35' dp. in pl. @ $65.00/lin.ft. 21,450 120 Lin.ft. 18" Sanitary sewer, 35'-40' dp. in pl. @ $75.00/lin.ft. 9,000 120 Lin.ft. 18" Sanitary sewer, 40'-45' dp. in pl. @ $85.00/lin.ft. 10,200 0786b Page 7. ZZ B. TRUNK SANITARY SEWER, Contd. 190 Lin.ft. 18" Sanitary sewer, 45'-50' dp. in pl. @ $95.00/lin.ft. 100 Lin.ft. 15" Sanitary sewer, 10'-15' dp. in pl. @ $33.00/lin.ft. 160 Lin.ft. 15" Sanitary sewer, 15'-20' dp, in pl. @ $38.00/lin.ft. 300 Lin.ft. 15" Sanitary sewer, 20'-25' dp. in pl. @ $43.00/lin.ft. 660 Lin.ft. 15" Sanitary sewer, 25'-30' dp, in pl. @ $53.00/lin.ft. 290 Lin.ft. 15" Sanitary sewer, 30'-35' dp. in pl. @ $63.00/lin.ft. 220 Lin.ft. 15" Sanitary sewer, 35'-40' dp. in pl. @ $73.00/lin.ft. 220 Lin.ft. 15" Sanitary sewer, 40'-45' dp. in pl. @ $83.00/lin.ft. 18 Each Std. 4' dia. MH w/casting @ $900.00/each 260 Lin.ft. MH depth greater than 8' dp. @ $70.00/lin.ft. LUMP SUM Clear and grub trees @ $6,000.00/L.S. 3,000 Ton Rock stabilization @ $7.00/ton 2,000 Lin.ft. Hay bales for erosion control @ $3.00/lin.ft. 12 Acres Seed with topsoil and mulch @ $2,000.00/Ac. Total +5% Contingencies +27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. b Bond Interest B. TOTAL TRUNK SANITARY SEWER ....................... A. Lift Station and Force Main B. Trunk Sanitary Sewer TOTAL........................ 07866 page 8. 23 18,050 3,300 6,080 12,900 34,980 18,270 16,060 18,260 16,200 18,200 6,000 21,000 6,000 24.000 $374,300 18,720 $393,020 106.120 $499,140 $187,900 499,140 $687,040 0 Legal SECTION 14 NW 1/4 Parcel 010-28 Parcel 010-29 SW 1/4 Parcel 010-52 Parcel 030-53 Parcel 041-53 Parcel 043-53 Parcel 044-53 APPENDIX B WESCOTT TRUNK SANITARY SEWER PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT 361 Trunk Area Assessable Assessable Sanitary Sewer Area Footage Rate Amount (1) 3.8 Ac. (1) 27.4 Ac. (1) 40.0 Ac. (1) 4.0 Ac. (1) 4.0 Ac. (1) 2.8 Ac. (1) 5.6 Ac. (1) Parcel 50-53 4.0 WILLIAMS 6 LARUE ADDITION Lot 1, Blk. 1 Lot 2, Blk. 2 Lot 3, Blk. 3 Lot 4, Blk. 4 $995/ac $995/ac $995/ac. $995/ac. $995/ac. $995/ac. $995/ac. $995/ac. $475/lot $475/lot $475/lot $475/lot $ 3,781.00 27,263.00 39,800.00 3,980.00 3,980.00 2,786.00 5,572.00 3,980.00 $ 475.00 475.00 475.00 475.00 TOTAL SECTION 14 ........... $ 93,042.00 (1) 20% of total area deducted for future streets. B-1 0786b Lateral Benefit Trunk San. sewer Rate Amount Total $ 3,781.00 27,263.00 39,800.00 3,980.00 3,980.00 2,786.00 5,572.00 3,980.00 $ 475.00 475.00 475.00 475.00 0 - $ 93,042.00 n U • Legal SECTION 15 SE 174— Parcel 4Parcel 010-76 APPENDIX B WESCOTT TRUNK SANITARY SEWER PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT 361 Trunk Area Assessable Assessable Sanitary Sewer Area Footage Rate Amount (1) 46.5 Ac. ST. FRANCIS WOOD ADDITION (1) Outlot A 24.05 Ac. Outlot B 2.35 Ac. Outlot C 2.66 Ac. TOTAL SECTION 15 .... SECTION 22 $995/ac $995/ac. $995/ac. $995/ac. NE 1/4 Parcel 011-01 47.18 Ac) 1420 L.F. $995/ac. Parcel 012-01 4.02 Ac) $995/ac. Parcel 010-02 3.08 Ac. $995/ac. (1) Parcel 011-04 56.0 Ac. 1465 L.F. $995/ac. NW 1/4 Parcel 011-25 (Windcrest Addn.) 940 L.F. (1) 20% of total area deducted for future streets. B-2 0786b $ 46,267.50 $ 23,929.75 2,338.25 2,646.70 $ 75,182.20 Lateral Benefit Trunk San. sewer Rate Amount Total $ 46,267.50 • $ 23,929.75 2,338.25 2,646.70 - 0 - $ 75,182.20 $ 46,944.10 $32/L.F. $ 45,440.00 $ 92,384.10 3,999.90 3,999.90 3,064.60 3,064.60 55,720.00 $32/L.F. 46,880.00 102,600.00 $32/L.F. 30,080.00 $ 30,080.00 SECTION 22, Continued .... Trunk Area Assessable Assessable Sanitary Sewer Legal Area Footage Rate Amount SE 1/4 Parcel 011-85 Parcel 011-86 SW/1/4 Parcel 014.54 Parcel 015-54 Parcel 016-54 Parcel 040-51 Parcel 050-51 Parcel 060-51 SECTION 23 NW 1/4 (1) 3.64 Ac. $995/ac. $ 3,621.80 (1) 4.36 Ac. $995/ac. 4,338.20 Lateral Benefit Trunk San. sewer Rate Amount Total $ 3,621.80 4,338.20 Ac. is 3.71 $995/ac. $ 3,691.45 3,691.45 (1) 3.08 Ac. $995/ac. 3,064.60 3,064.60 (1) 3.08 Ac. $995/ac. 3,064.60 3,064.60 (1) 2.93 Ac. $995/ac. 2,915.35 2,915.35 (1) 4.0 Ac. $995/ac. 3,980.00 3,980.00 (1) 0.3 Ac. $995/ac. 298.50 298.50 TOTAL SECTION 22 ............. $134,703.10 $122,400.00 $257,103.10 Parcel 012-25 40.5 Ac. $995/ac.$ 40,297.50 Parcel 013-25 17.03 Ac� $995/ac. 16,944.85 (1) (1) 20% of total area deducted for future streets. B-3 -.. 0786b $ 40,297.50 16,944.85 • SECTION 23. Continued (1) 20% of total area deducted for future streets. B-4 • • Trunk Area Lateral Benefit Assessable Assessable Sanitary Sewer Trunk San. sewer Legal Area Footage Rate Amount Rate Amount Total Parcel 014-25 4.4 Ac. $995/ac. 4,378.00 4,378.00 (1) Parcel 011-26 24.0 Ac. $995/ac. 23,880.00 23,880.00 (1) Parcel 010-27 27.37 Ac. $995/ac. 27,233.15 27,233.15 (1) Parcel 010-28 2.60 Ac. $995/ac. 2,587.00 2,587.00 SW 1/4 Parcel 010-50 0.84 Ac. $995/ac. 835.80 835.80 Parcel 010-51 29.65 Ac. $995/ac. 29,501.75 29,501.75 Parcel 020-50 0.84 Ac. $995/ac. 835.80 835.80 TOTAL SECTION 23 ............... $146,493.85 - 0 - $146,493.85 SECTION 14 $ 93,042.00 SECTION 15 75,182.20 SECTION 22 257,103.10 SECTION 23 146,493.85 TOTAL .............. $571,821.15 (1) 20% of total area deducted for future streets. B-4 • • WESCOTT TRUNK SANITARY SEWER PROJECT 361 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 1982 LATERAL SERVICE TRUNK SANITARY SEWER ___=_= Lineal Foot AssTt. ------ Front Foot Assm't. PO �0 N oq 00 OPOSF < 6 TAT1 Pond J -S Ex 15"RCP —�1 Pamel 010-76 IG— �� Pi0alin4 i i ll 04 \I 0 IOnd JP -la I I ROMESTROQ IIOSEW A110E> A A ASSOC. SIL' comLrm`OI. ms P -AI FILEv0 49256 JJLY. 1982 O\\ -0\ Pale\ ��SCprl �p4p I5° RCP r1 U I r Nol VDrLk alNi . . , 0 L \.,/; I ADOITpM CARRIAGE HILLS GOLF COURSE T VA PATRICK EAGAN PARK HILLS m 9�* ----------- fifill WEST PUBLISH Ist ADD WESCOTT TRUNK SANITARY SEWER PROJECT 361 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 1982 TRUNK AREA SANITARY SEWER OVERSIZE 801113TRIM NSEIN, AWME A ASSOC, ML cm'VATM giman IL Pok w...b FILE NO 39256 0 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Ten PROJECT #364 C. Project #364, Brittany Fourth Addtion - Trunk Water Main -- On July 20, in response to a petition received from the developer of this addition, the City Council authorized staff to prepare a feasibility report to provide trunk water main through the pro- posed Brittany Fourth Addition. This report was completed and presented to the Council on September 7, with the public hearing being scheduled for October 5. The feasibility report has been reviewed with the developer and no objections are anticipated as this developer is the only one impacted by this proposed project. Enclosed on pages 31 through 4( is a copy of the feasibility report for this project. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing and approve or deny Project #364 for the installation of trunk water main to the Brittany Fourth Addition. 30 0 0 REPORT ON BRITTANY 4th ADDITION TRUNK WATER MAIN PROJECT No. 364 FOR EAG^ MINNESOTA 1982 FILE No. 49262 Bam" w, /lose, vlac&4 h a r uac4244, 9mm e,q eagimmu Zt parr/, M&06"& 31 0 2335 V. %..r .40,b, 36 SF. P.J. M....6 55113 PA.,. 612-636-0600 September 14, 1982 Honorable Mayor and Council City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Mn. 55122 Re: Brittany 4th Addition Trunk Water Main Project 364 Our File No. 49262 Dear Mayor and Council: is Ono G. Row .. P.E Ruben W. Rmene. P.E. JPUPh C. AM H k, P.E. RmdJord A. Lembne. P.E. RkhmNE. lumen. P.E. J.. C. of... P.E. Gb R. Coat. P.F. Reilh A. Gwdon. P.E. n". E. Hoyn. P.E. Rkh. W. Fm. P.E. Robw G. Seha.im,. P.E. Af# tM L. Swrak, P.E. D..M C. Raresedl, P.E. Jerry A. 8.urdun, P E. Mart A. Hon,on, P.E. TN R. Field, P. E. Mlrheel T. R.mmmnn. P.E. Moban R. Pjr fln , 1•.1:. Ch.nm A. Er k. lm M. ftw r H.r . M. Goon Transmitted herewith is our report for Brittany 4th Addition, Project 364. This report covers trunk water main for Brittany 4th Addition. We will be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a mutually convenient time to discuss this report. Yours very truly, BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Mar A. Hanson MAH:li I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the Ptate of Minna ta. Mark A. Hanson �Date: September 14, 1982 Reg. No. 14260 Approved by: omaolbert, P.E. Director of Public Works Date: %-' 1698b 3.2, 0 0 BRITTANY 4TH ADDITION TRUNK WATER MAIN SCOPE: This project provides for construction of trunk water main within Brittany 4th Addition. Brittany 4th Addition is located adjacent to Johnny Cake Ridge Road at Sherwood Way. The proposed plat consists of 18 single fam- ily residential lots. Brittany 4th Addition is Outlot A within Brittany 1st Addition. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS• This project is feasible and is in accor- dance with the Master Utility Plans for the City of Eagan. The project as outlined herein, can best be carried out as one contract. This report assumes all grading will be done by the developer. DISCUSSION• Water Main: This project provides for construction of a 16 inch trunk water main within Shevlin Court. The 16 inch warur mn;,. ;ii 16 inch plug located at Sherwood Way and an existing 16 inch plug located at the south property line of Johnny Cake Ridge Addition. Also included is con- struction of required hydrants to provide proper fire protection and_individu- al water services to each lot. Sanitary sewer laterals and services will be constructed by the developer with a connection to an existing 24 inch trunk sanitary sewer located within Shelvin Court. AREA TO BE INCLUDED: Assessment Area Construction Area Brittany 1st Addition - Outlot A Brittany 1st Addition - Outlot A Page 1. 1698b 33 0 0 COST ESTIMATE: Detailed cost estimates are presented at the back of this re- port in Appendix A. The total estimated project cost is $52,640 which in- cludes contingencies and all related overhead. Overhead costs are estimated at 27% and include legal, engineering, administration, and bond interest. EASEMENTS: A permanent easement 20 feet wide will be required along Lots 8 and 9. It is assumed as part of this report this easement will be acquired as part of the final plat at no cost. ASSESSMENTS: Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited property. A preliminary assessment roll is included at the back of this re- port in Appendix B. It is proposed to assess lateral benefit from trunk water main at the 1982 rate. It is determined that the entire length of this trunk water main will serve this entire proposed subdivision and provide lateral benefit for water supply, quality and fire protection to each lot equally. Therefore, the cal- culated lateral benefit from trunk water main will be spread equally over all lots. Water service construction will be assessed equally to each lot which will include service lines constructed 15 feet beyond the property line, including corporation stop, and curb box. As previously mentioned, trunk sanitary sewer does exist within Shevlin Court. However, because of the excessive depth of this trunk sewer, the de- veloper proposes to construct an 8" lateral sewer line within Shevlin Court and provide a single connection to the trunk line in lieu of several individu- al services. Therefore, the lateral benefit from trunk sewer is calculated by Page 2. 1698b 3-1- 0 0 taking the lineal footage of existing trunk sanitary sewer from the center of Sherwood Way to the first existing manhole located to the north in Shevlin Court which the developer proposes to make his connection. It is proposed to assess this cost equally over each lot. The lateral benefit calculation and rate for trunk water main and trunk sanitary sewer along with the estimated cost for water services are listed below: Water Main Lateral Benefit from Trunk Water Services Sanitary Sewer 1,316 Assessable Ft. @ $15.00/F.F. $19,740 18 Lots @ $651/lot $11,710 Lateral Benefit from Trunk 150 Assessable Ft. @ $16.00/F.F. $ 2,400 REVENUE SOURCES: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this project are pre- sented below: WATER MAIN r Trunk Water Main Service Lateral Benefit Trunk Service Assessment Project Cost $40,930.00 11,710.00 TOTAL ................. $52,640.00 SANITARY SEWER Lateral Benefit Trunk Revenue $19,740.00 11,710.00 $31,450.00 Project Cost Revenue - 0 - $ 2,400.00 Balance -$21,190.00 Balance TOTAL - 0 - $ 2,400.00 +$ 2,400.00 TOTAL...............................................-$ 18,790.00 Page 3. 1698b 35 0 0 It is estimated $18,790.00 is required from the City Trunk Fund to finance this project. PROJECT SCHEDULE Present Feasibility Report September 21, 1982 Public Hearing October 5, 1982 Approve Plans and Specifications October 5, 1982 Open Bid October 27, 1982 Award Contract November 2, 1982 Construction Completion December, 1982 Assessment Hearing Spring, 1983 First Payment Due with Real Estate Taxes May, 1984 I 1698b Page 4. 36 0 0 APPENDIX A BRITTANY 4TH ADDITION TRUNK WATER MAIN COST ESTIMATE PROJECT 364 A.) TRUNK WATER MAIN 700 Lin.ft. 16" D.I.P. Water main @ $30.00/lin.ft. $21,000 30 Lin.ft. 6" D.I.P. Water main @ $12.00/lin.ft, l 360 2 Each Hydrant in place @ $800.00/each 1,600 2 Each 6" Resilient wedge gate valve and box @ $350.00/each 700 3,500 Lbs. Fittings in pl. @ $1.00/lb. 3,500 2 Each Connect 16" D.I.P. to existing plug @ $400.00/each 800 1.0 Acre Seed w/topsoil and mulch @ $4,000.00/ac. 2,000 730 Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft. 730 Total $30,690 +5% Contingency 1,540 $32,230 +27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. S Bond Interest 8,700 TOTAL TRUNK WATER MAIN ............................ $40,930 1698b Page 5. 37 0 B.) SERVICES 860 Lin.ft. 1" Water service line @ $7.00/lin.ft. $ 6,020 18 Each 1" Corporation stop in place @ $30.00/each 540 18 Each 1" Curb stop box in place @ $75.00/each 1,350 860 Lin.ft. Mechanical Trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft. 860 Total $ 8,770 +5% Contingencies 440 1698b + $ 9,210 +27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. 6 Bond Interest 2,500 TOTAL SERVICES ............................. $11,710 A. Trunk Water Main $40,930 B. Services 11 710 TOTAL .. $52,640 Page 6. 01 APPENDIX B BRITTANY 4TH ADDITION TRUNK WATER MAIN PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL A.) LATERAL BENEFIT TRUNK WATER MAIN Legal Rate Assessable Footage Total Amt. Brittany 4th Addition $15.00/F.F. 1,316' $19,740 Lots 1-18, Blk. 1 Cost/Lot = $19,740/18 Lots = $1,097/Lot B.) SERVICES Brittany 4th Addition Lots 1-18, Blk. 1 Cost/Lot = $11,710/18 Lots = $651/Lot ,C.) LATERAL BENEFIT TRUNK SANITARY SEWER Brittany 4th Addition Lots 1-18, Blk. 1 Cost/Lot = $2,400/18 Lots = $134/Lot 1698b Page 7. 39 0 I / ar ml wI PROPO i WATER / 12 rw \\ 11 BRITTANY 4th 'ADDITION TRUNK WATER MAIN 0 SCALE: I" = 200' PROJECT No. 364 EAGAN, MINNESOTA BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK & ASSOC, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS FILE No. 49262 St. Paul, Minnesota - Q • p 9 10 B /11 n 7 "( 12 W i 6 13 I 0 ✓I 5 I 14 4 15 I (I 3 W 16 x 2 I 17 0I � 1 IB - I j�A \ Z SHE x ` JI \ 2y„ 1 0 LATERAL BENEFIT FROM TRUNK SANITARY SEWER LATERAL BENEFIT FROM TRUNK WATER MAIN O SCALE: 1" = 200' BRITTANY 4th ADDITION ASSESSMENT AREA PROJECT No. 364 EAGAN, MINNESOTA BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 3 ASSOC., INC. CONSULTIK ENCRtEERSQ FILE No. 49262 St. Paul, Mimesoa !"L 9 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Eleven PROJECT #365 D. Project #365, Northview Meadows First Addition - Trunk Sewer & Water -- On July 20, a petition was submitted by Lexington South Associates subsequent to preliminary plat approval of Northview Meadows Addition requesting the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water to service this proposed future subdivision. In response to this petition, the Council directed staff to prepare a feasi- bility report which was completed and presented to the Council on September 7, with the public hearing being scheduled for October 5. On September 30, an informational meeting was held at the City Hall for all affected property owners to explain the details of the project and the proposed assessments associated with it. There were 14 people present representing 7 properties affected by this project. A major point of consideration under this project is staff's recommendation for the extension of the trunk water main along County Road 30 to connect to the existing trunk on Dodd Road. This extension affects a majority of the existing residents along County Road 30. However, it is necessary to provide a looped connection for the trunk water main through the high pressure zone to provide proper service, fire protection and water pressure. Bob Rosene, the consulting, engineer, will be available to discuss the details of this project at the public hearing. A copy of the feasibility report is enclosed on pages 4.1 through .S 7 for your review. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing and approve or deny Project #365 for the installation of trunk water main and sanitary sewer to service to Northview Meadows First Addition. _-a 0 0 REPORT ,m NORTHVIEW TRUNK SEWER PROJECT MEADOWS AND WATER No. 365 FOR EAGAN , MINNESOTA 1982 FILE No. 49261 Bmedtaoo, Kadeste, rqKj�_vli a a 4m"iat"r Disc. Ca..d"afty ea9im"" 94 Pawl, M&ww"& OWN 0 IJ 2335 V %..a #.VA. 36 SP. P.J. Af--.& 55„3 PA...: 6f2-636-4600 August 31, 1982 Honorable Mayor and Council City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Mn. 55122 Re: Northview Meadows 1st Addition Trunk Sewer and Water Project 365 Our File No. 49261 Dear Mayor and Council: Orl. G. Panesrrau, P.E. ft M" W. Rrnene. P.E. Jmeph C Anderlik. P.E. Rrmrynrd A. Lem". P.E Rreh.nl E. 7emer. P.E. James C W.en, P.E. Gknw R. rank. P.E. Rnlh A. Gurdon. pt. Thum.. E. N..r., P.P.. Rkhurd W. Fn m, P.E. R.hen G. .SrhunrchL P.E. Marvin L..Srvrvls. P.L. D.na/d C. Rur,,di. PL'. Jerry A. Bourdon. Y.F.. Mer* A. /lumen. P.E. Ted F. Field. P.E. Mkhael 1: Ramm.nn. P.L. Clmrk+A. &,rk.nn L. M. Pvr rhk. Nadu. .N. Wton D..ul E Oh.. Transmitted herewith is our report for Northview Meadows 1st Addition, Project 365. This report covers trunk sanitary sewer and water for Northview Meadows 1st Addition. We will be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a mutually convenient time to discuss this report. Yours very truly, BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. P J Mark A. Hanson MAH:li I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the.State of MinnesOpa. Mark A. Hanson Date: August 31, 1982 Reg. No. 14260 Approved by:Lee— Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. f' Director of Public Works 1475b Date: %- / I"e 0 0 NORTHVIEW MEADOWS TRUNK SEWER AND WATER SCOPE: This project provides for construction of sub -trunk sanitary sewer and trunk water main to service Northview Meadows Phase I. Northview Meadows is located on the south side of County Road No. 30 midway between Lexington Ave- nue and Dodd Road. Northview Meadows will ultimately consist of 156 single family residential units on approximately 70 acres. Proposed Phase I includes 68 units to be developed at this time with the remaining units being developed at a future date. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This project is feasible and is in accor- dance with the Master Utility Plan for sanitary sewer and water main for the City of Eagan. The project as outlined herein, can best be carried out as one contract. No grading will be required by the developer for the installation of trunk utilities proposed herein. DISCUSSION: Sanitary Sewer: It is proposed to extend a 10 inch sanitary sewer from the existing 30 inch trunk sanitary sewer located in Wilderness Run Road. The sanitary sewer will extend to the north within future Wescott Hills Drive right-of-way to the north line of Northview Meadows as it abuts Wescott Hills Drive. The sanitary sewer is considered a sub -trunk to provide service to the NE 1/4 of Section 26. Also included are sanitary sewer stubs to service future streets in Northview Meadows and the future development of the property west of Wescott Hills Drive. Page 1. 1475b 45 0 0 Water Main: It is proposed to construct trunk water main within County Road No. 30 to service Northview Meadows. Northview Meadows is included within the high pressure zone and will be serviced by the existing trunk water main lo- cated in Lexington Avenue and County Road No. 30. It is, therefore, necessary to extend the existing 20 inch trunk water main in County Road No. 30 at Northview School east to service Northview Meadows. It is recommended, due to the minimal length of water main required in relation to the benefit received, to extend the proposed 20 inch water main from Northview Meadows to Dodd Road and connect to an existing 16 inch water main which was installed in 1980 un- der Project 241. This connection will not only provide an alternate feed for this area but also provide a connection for proper circulation and looping of trunk facilities for the high pressure zone in the southeast corner of the City. It is proposed to extend hydrants to the north side of County Road No. 30 adjacent to existing homes for availability of water and providing proper fire protection. Construction of water services is also included as required. AREA TO BE INCLUDED ASSESSMENT AREA Section 23, SE 1/4 Parcel 010-75 Parcel 010-76 Parcel 010-77 Parcel 010-78 Parcel 010-79 CONSTRUCTION AREA Section 25. NW 1/4 Parcel 011-26 Parcel 020-26 Parcel 030-26 Parcel 040-26 Parcel 050-26 Page 2. 1475b 4G 0 0 Deer Addition Section 26, NE 1/4 Lot 1, Blk. 1 Parcel 010-02 (Future Northview Meadows) Section 24, SW 1/4 Parcel 010-02 Parcel 010-54 Parcel 010-03 Parcel 010-55 Parcel 010-05 Parcel 011-56 Section 26, SE 1/4 Parcel 011-58 Parcel 010-75 Parcel 012-58 Parcel 020-58 Section 25, NW 1/4 Parcel 011-26 Parcel 020-26 Parcel 030-26 Parcel 040-26 Parcel 050-26 Section 26, NE 1/4 Parcel 010-01 (Future Northview Meadows) Parcel 010-02 Parcel 010-03 Parcel 010-05 COST ESTIMATE: Detailed cost estimates are presented at the back of this re- port in Appendix A. These costs are summarized as follows: A. Sanitary Sewer (Wescott Hills Drive) $139,980 B. Trunk Water Main (C.S.A.H. No. 30) 291,670 TOTAL ...................... $431,650 The total project cost is $431,650 which includes contingencies and all related overhead. Overhead costs are estimated at 27% and include legal, en- gineering; administration, and bond interest. - EASEMENTS: A permanent easement 80 feet wide will be required for Wescott Hills Drive. It is assumed as part of this report, right-of-way will be ac- quired with final platting of Northview Meadows at no costs. Page 3. 1475b 47 0 0 Easement acquisition will be acquired for construction of trunk water main along County Road No. 30 to Dodd Road. An additional 17 feet of right-of-way will be required thus providing 50 feet of half right-of-way for County Road No. 30. Parcels affected due to easement acquisition and their estimated cost are listed below. Easement costs are estimated at $5,000/acre. Parcel Area Section 25, NW 1/4 Parcel 011-26 0.07 Acres Parcel 020-26 0.23 Acres Parcel 030-26 0.26 Acres Parcel 040-26 0.17 Acres Parcel 050-26 0.09 Acres Section 26, NE 1/4 Parcel 010-01 (Future North - view Meadows) 0.57 Acres Parcel 010-02 0.20 Acres Parcel 010-03 0.26 Acres TOTAL...................... Estimated Cost $ 350 1,150 1,300 850 450 No Cost $1,000 1,300 $6,400 ASSESSMENTS: Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited property. A preliminary assessment roll is included at the back of this re- port in Appendix B. Assessments for sanitary sewer are proposed to be assessed against the abutting property. Trunk costs are assumed to be the additional cost of 10 inch pipe versus 8 inch pipe with no consideration given to depth. It is pro- posed to assess 1/3 of the total lateral sanitary sewer cost to Northview Meadows. The remaining 2/3 will be assessed to parcel 010-05 included in the NE 1/4 Section 26. Page 4. 1475b Im 0 Assessments for trunk water main on County Road No. 30 are proposed to be assessed through trunk area charges and lateral benefit from trunk water main. The assessment area for trunk and lateral benefit from trunk are shown on the attached drawing at the back of this report. It is proposed to assess only 50% of the total front footage at the lateral benefit rate from trunk to parcels which are anticipated being subdivided in the future. Parcels which will not be subdivided will be assessed 100% of their total front footage. Services will be assessed to the property it serves. Assessment rates presented herein are listed below. Latral benefit for sanitary sewer will be revised based on final costs and will be 100% of the cost for an 8 inch sanitary sewer. Trunk area and lateral benefit from trunk for water will be in accordance with predetermined rates in effect at the time of the public hearing. Sanitary Sewer - Lateral Benefit $36.83/F.F. Water - Lateral benefit from Trunk - Residential/ Agriculture $15.00/F.F. - Comm./Ind. $18.00/F.F. Trunk Area - Residential/Agriculture $995/Acre - Commercial/Industrial $995/Acre REVENUE SOURCES: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this project are pre- sented below: Sanitary Sewer (Wescott Hills Drive) Project Cost Revenue Balance Lateral $131,490 Trunk 8,490 Lateral Assessment $131,490 $139,980 $131,490 -$8,490 Page 5. 1475b 0 0 Water Main (C.S.A.H. No. 30) Project Cost Revenue Balance Trunk $291,670 Trunk Area Assessment $108,731 Lateral Benefit from Trunk Assmt. 87,777 $291,670 $196,508 —$95,162 It is estimated approximately $103,652 is required from the City Trunk Fund to finance this project. PROJECT SCHEDULE Present Feasibility Report Public Hearing Approve Plans and Specifications Open Bids Award Contract Construction Completion Assessment Hearing First Payment Due with Real Estate Taxes Page 6. 1475b so September 7, 1982 October 5, 1982 Oct./Nov., 1982 Nov./Dec., 1982 December, 1982 Summer, 1983 September, 1983 May, 1984 0 0 APPENDIX A NORTHVIEW MEADOWS TRUNK SEWER AND WATER COST ESTIMATE PROJECT 365 A. SANITARY SEWER (WESCOTT HILLS DRIVE) 300 Lin.ft. 10" PVC San. sewer, 10'-15' dp. in pl. @ $15.00/lin.ft. $ 4,500 50 Lin.ft. 10" PVC San. sewer, 15'-20' dp. in pl. @ $18.00/lin.ft. 900 460 Lin.ft. 10" PVC San. sewer, 20'-25' dp. in pl. @ $24.00/lin.ft. 11,040 250 Lin.ft. 10" PVC San. sewer, 25'-30' dp. in pl. @ $30.00/lin.ft. 7,500 450 Lin.ft. 10" PVC San. sewer, 30'-35' dp. in pl. @ $35.00/lin.ft. 15,750 640 Lin.ft. 10" PVC San. sewer, 35'-40' dp. in pl. @ $50.00/lin.ft. 32,000 290 Lin.ft. 8" PVC San. sewer, 10'-15' dp. in pl. @ $12.00/lin.ft. 3,480 9 Each Std. 4' dia. MH w/cstg. @ $800.00/each .7,200 160 Lin.ft. MH depth greater than 8' dp. @ $60.00/lin.ft. 9,600 1 Each Connect 10" PVC to existing MH @ $250.00/each 250 15 Ton Bituminous mixture for patching @ $100.00/ton 1,500 200 Ton Rock stabilization below pipe @ $6.00/ton 1,200 2.0 Acres Seed w/topsoil and mulch @ $2,000.00/ac. 4,000 LUMP SUM Clear and grub trees @ $3,000.00/L.S. 3,000 2,410 Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft. 2,410 160 Lin.ft. Hay bales for erosion control @ $4.00/lin.ft. 640 Total $104,970 +5% Contingency 5,250 $110,220 +27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. S Bond Interest 29,760 A. TOTAL SANITARY SEWER ............................... $139,980 Page 7. 1475b S/ 0 0 B. TRUNK WATER MAIN (C.S.A.H. No. 30) 4,800 Lin.ft. 20" DIP Water main @ $32.00/1in.ft. $153,600 660 Lin.ft. 6" DIP Water main @ $12.00/lin.ft. 7,920 10 Each Hydrant in pl. @ $800.00/each 8,000 2 Each 20" Butterfly valve 6 box @ $2,500.00/each 5,000 10 Each 6" Resilient wedge gate valve b box @ $350.00/each 3,500 20,000 Lbs. Fittings in pl. @ $1.00/lb. 20,000 1 Each Connect 20" DIP to existing 20" plug @ $500.00/each 500 1 Each Connect 16" DIP to existing 16" plug @ $500.00/each 500 LUMP SUM Clear and grub trees @ $2,000.00/L.S. 2,000 900 Ton Class 5 aggregate base for shouldering @ $5.00/ton 4,500 6.0 Acres Seed w/topsoil @ $2,000.00/ac. 12,000 150 Lin.ft. 1" Type K copper in pl. @ $5.00/lin.ft. 750 5 Each 1" Corporation stop in pl. @ $30.00/each 150 5 Each 1" Curb stop and box in pl. @ $60.00/each 300 $218,720 +5% Contingency 10,940 $229,660 +27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. b Bond Interest 62,010 B. TOTAL TRUNK WATER MAIN ............................. $291,670 Page 8. 1475b S'�' Assessable Assessable Legal Area Footage SECTION 23 SE 1/4 Lateral Benefit Sewer Water Main (2) Parcel 010-75 30.4 Acs. Parcel 010-76 1.0 Ac. $995/Ac. 995.00 $15/FF Parcel 010-77 15.6 Acs (1) (2) Parcel 010-78 14.5 Acs. W Parcel 010-79 0.6 Ac. DEER ADDITION (1) Lot 1, Blk. 1 1 Lot SECTION 24 SW 1/4 $995/Ac. 14,427.50 $15/FF (2) Parcel 010-54 24 Ace. $995/Ac. 597.00 $15/FF 300.00 Parcel 010-55 3.8 Acs. $ 475.00 $15/FF 1,200.00 $ 1,675.00 Parcel 011-56 7.6 Acs. $ 23,880.00 • (2) Parcel 011-58 6.5 Ace. (2) APPENDIX B NORTHVIEW MEADOWS TRUNK SEWER AND WATER PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT 365 Lateral Sanitary Trunk Area Lateral Benefit Sewer Water Main Trunk Water Main 517.5 Rate Amt. Rate Amt. Rate Amt. Total 330 Parcel 012-58 3.8 Ace. 330 Parcel 020-58 1.0 Ac. (1) 50% of total front footage based on future subdividing. (2) 20% of total area deducted for future streets. Page 9. $995/Ac. 6,467.00 $15/FF 4,950.00 $995/Ac. 3,781.00 $15/FF 4,950.00 $995/Ac. 995.00 11,417.00 8,731.00 995.00 (1) 517.5 FF $995/Ac. $30,248.00 $15/FF $ 7,762.50 $ 38,010.50 285 $995/Ac. 995.00 $15/FF 4,275.00 5,270.00 (1) 330 $995/Ac, 15,522.00 $15/FF 4,950.00 20,472.00 (1) 280 $995/Ac. 14,427.50 $15/FF 4,200.00 18,627.50 20 $995/Ac. 597.00 $15/FF 300.00 897.00 80 $475/Lot $ 475.00 $15/FF 1,200.00 $ 1,675.00 $995/Ac. $23,880.00 $ 23,880.00 • 330 $995/Ac. 3,781.00 $15/FF $ 4,950.00 8,731.00 (1) 330 $995/Ac. 7,562.00 $15/FF 4,950.00 12,512,00 (1) 330 Parcel 012-58 3.8 Ace. 330 Parcel 020-58 1.0 Ac. (1) 50% of total front footage based on future subdividing. (2) 20% of total area deducted for future streets. Page 9. $995/Ac. 6,467.00 $15/FF 4,950.00 $995/Ac. 3,781.00 $15/FF 4,950.00 $995/Ac. 995.00 11,417.00 8,731.00 995.00 APPENDIX B NORTHVIEW MEADOWS TRUNK SEWER AND WATER PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT 365 S.S. - Sanitary Sewer W.M. - Water Main (1) 50% of total front footage based on future subdividing. (2) 20% of total area deducted for future streets. Trunk Area Lateral Benefit Water Main Trunk Water Main • Rate Amt. Rate Amt. Total Page 10. $15/FF $ 2,700.00 $ 2,700.00 $15/FF 4,425.00 4,425.00 $15/FF Lateral Sanitary $15/FF Assessable Assessable $15/FF Sewer Legal Area Footage Rate Amt. SECTION 25 NW 1/4 4,590.00 Parcel 011-26 180 --- --- 87,660.00 $108,730.50 $82,822.00 $323,047.50 (1) Parcel 020-26 295 (1) Parcel 030-26 331.9 (1) Parcel 040-26 219.4 Parcel 050-26 226 SECTION 26 NE 1/4 Parcel 010-01 (Future S.S. 1190'(1) Northview Meadows) W.M. 735' $36.83/FF $43,830 (1) Parcel 010-02 W.M. 255' Parcel 010-03 W.M. 330' Parcel 010-05 S.S. 2380' $36.83/FF 87,660 TOTAL ............... $131,490 S.S. - Sanitary Sewer W.M. - Water Main (1) 50% of total front footage based on future subdividing. (2) 20% of total area deducted for future streets. Trunk Area Lateral Benefit Water Main Trunk Water Main • Rate Amt. Rate Amt. Total Page 10. $15/FF $ 2,700.00 $ 2,700.00 $15/FF 4,425.00 4,425.00 $15/FF 4,978.50 4,978.50 $15/FF 3,291.00 3,291.00 $15/FF 3,390.00 3,390.00 $15/FF $11,025.00 $ 54,855.00 $18/FF 4,590.00 4,590.00 $18/FF 5,940.00 5,940.000 --- --- 87,660.00 $108,730.50 $82,822.00 $323,047.50 010-75 / 010-75 (—E., SAN SEWER VES F Scott it.. Feel 2 C 100 201 300 40C i — w n w O I O M1 I 010-05 PA 010-05 ASSESSMEN7S LATERAL BENEFIT (2/3 of COST) LATERAL BENEFIT ( V3 of COST) i Y. SEWER a i fPRA rr` of ; to I I I 1 \5 U s NORTHVIEW MEADOWS SANITARY SEWER PROJECT No. 365 49261 m J SCHOOL 010-76 gEE PR OPOSE 1 WATER a. 20 WATERMAIN , 7 2, O I. rn � 010-03 t y O' U FUTURE e' co �\ p WATERMAIN 010-55 0� I, =1 U .F; >:I4 050-26 040-26 Scale In Feet: 0 100 200 300 400 0 010-77 __ DIFFLEY ROAD 010-75 DID -76 -------� i,7 (Co. Rd. No. 30) W I U 1\ NO TN IEW' ,M AD WS Z. o 4 I 1 e oto -o2 TRAIL �" FUTURE WATERMAIN 011-56 012-56 071-58 a� iD c_o e NFFLEY ROAD ° --- / ¢1 Z PROPOSED 20'I c p " S WATERMAIN 01 . I OI C,!c 1 U EA.16' • WATERMAIN 030-26 020-26 O 1 7-28 ,I PROPOSED LATERAL BENEFIT FROM TRUNK (FRONT FOOT) .RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED LATERAL BENEFIT FROM TRUNK (FRONT FOOT) COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL 8 jjD � OTT y�C 9 9 LL SCALE IN FEET: 0 Soo 1000 2000 S7 WILDERNE ROAD RUN /Z rr\\ NORTHVIEW MEADOWS TRUNK AREA ASSESSMENT PROJECT NO. 365 49261 BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK & ASSM INC. -23 t:l X, OI I WI MC. S. A. H. 8 jjD � OTT y�C 9 9 LL SCALE IN FEET: 0 Soo 1000 2000 S7 WILDERNE ROAD RUN /Z rr\\ NORTHVIEW MEADOWS TRUNK AREA ASSESSMENT PROJECT NO. 365 49261 BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK & ASSM INC. X, 8 jjD � OTT y�C 9 9 LL SCALE IN FEET: 0 Soo 1000 2000 S7 WILDERNE ROAD RUN /Z rr\\ NORTHVIEW MEADOWS TRUNK AREA ASSESSMENT PROJECT NO. 365 49261 BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK & ASSM INC. 0 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Twelve CABLE TELEVISION RFP E. Cable Television RFP (Request for Proposals) -- The Joint Burns- ville/Eagan Cable Television Commission has been meeting for several months to discuss, study and review many aspects that relate to the future franchising of a cable company to provide cable tele- vision services to the Cities of Burnsville and Eagan. The Joint Commission, equally represented by both communities, at their last regular meeting held on Thursday, September 23, 1982, adopted the Request for Proposals that was prepared with the assistance of the consulting team led by Thomas Creighton. A copy of this docu- ment was sent out to each member of the City Council approximately a week ago for your review. The public hearing is to provide any .opportunity for public input on the Request for proposals for a cable communications system to jointly serve the Cities of Burns- ville and Eagan. Copies of the Request for Proposals are on file in the Eagan City Offices; however, to date, the City Administrator is unaware of any public review of the document. The City of Burns- ville is considering the recommendation of the Joint Commission and will be acting on the RFP at their regular City Council meeting on Monday, October 4, 1982, and the City Administrator is planning to provide a report to the City Council of their action. The appro- ximate time table for submitting RFP's by prospective bidders is December/January. City Councilmember Smith, the City Council's representative on the Joint Commission, and the City Administrator, an ex officio member of the Joint Commission, have continually provided an update to the City Council of different decisions studied and acted upon by the Joint Commission. If there is any additional information required, they will answer questions and present additional background material at the regular City Council meeting. A revised copy of the RFP was received from Tom Creighton Friday morning and this is enclosed on pages 6- through 92 for your review. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny, with or without any modifications, the RFP as recommended for approval by the Joint Burnsville/Eagan Cable Commission which authorizes the solicitation and advertisement for RFP's to provide a joint cable television service to the Cities of Burnsville and Eagan. M MOTION by Councilperson • CITY OF COUNTY OF SPATE OF MINNESOTA NO. to adopt the following: A RESOLUPICN ADOPTING A RDDUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR A CABLE CCMNUNiC MCN SYSTEM FOR THE CITY OF ,MlltESOTA. WHEREAS, the City of (City) has participated in the Burnsville/Eagan Cable Communications Commission (Commission); and WHEREAS, the Commission was delegated the responsibility to prepare and adopt and did prepare and adopt a Request for Proposals (RFP) and a prelimi- nary draft franchise ordinance for a cable communications system for the City, and; WHEREAS, the City is the franchising authority; and WHEREAS, Section 4.140 (D) (1) of the Official Rules of the Minnesota Cable Communications Board requires that the franchising authority shall adopt in a public hearing the Request for Proposals; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was published in the official newspaper of the City on the day of , 1982; and WHEREAS, members of the public have been afforded a reasonable oppor- tunity to be heard. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City as follows: 1. The City adopts the RFP and receives the preliminary draft of the franchise ordinance. 2. The RFP accompanied by a draft of the preliminary franchise shall be issued by the Commission on behalf of the City on or before October 6, 1982, and shall be on file in the Clerk's Office of the City. 3. The City hereby delegates to the Commission the responsibility to perform on behalf of the City all tasks incident to the issuance of the RFP as required by the Official Rules of the Minnesota Cable Communications Board. S? IA 4. The City hereby delegates to the Conmission the responsibility to perform on behalf of the City all tasks incident to the receipt and evaluation of any proposals received by the Commission, to culminate in the recannendation to the City by the Commission of a cable carpany and a final franchise ordinance to be considered by the City in its regular ordinance procedure. MCTICN seconded by Councilperson , and adopted by the City Council of the City at a Regular Meeting this day of _, 1982, by roll call vote as follows: ATTEST: Aye: Naye: CITY OF -2- ME Ci For the Cities of Burnsville and Eagan, Minnesota October 6, 1982 Prepared by: Thomas D. Creighton Stern, Levine, Schwartz, Lifson 5 Creighton, P.A. 5005 South Cedar Lake Road Minneapolis, MM 55416 Telephone: (612) 377-8620 With Assistance From: Ms. Anita Benda Stech Mr. Ralph Canpbell III Utilizing the Application Forms of: CPIC Associates 0 I. A. General Instructions E The purpose of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to seek qualified appli- cants to provide cable o nnunication service to the citizens of the cities of Burnsville and Eagan, Minnesota. Each city government of these two (2) com- munities has resolved that the development of a joint cable television system to serve their oamnunities is in their best interest and -,has authorized a joint powers commission known as the Burnsville/Eagan Cable Communications Commission (Commmission) to continue work to establish such a system. It is the intent of the city governments to grant the cable commmunications franchise to the same Grantee and to adopt identical cable camnunications ordi- nances except in the areas of unique ommumity construction standards. The Commission will recommend both the common Grantee and the final cable com- munications franchise ordinance to each city government for their adoption. Only applications proposing a common system to jointly serve the cities then members of the Commission will be accepted. This RFP contains information and instructions relating to the preparation and filing of proposals; conditions and provisions regarding the installation, operation and maintenance of the cable communications systems; and the procedure to be used in evaluating applicant proposals. B. Principles Embodied in the RFP The following have been prominent among the principles guiding the develop- ment of the present RFP: 1. The Commission looks to the cable industry not merely for the variety of entertainment it can provide, but for the contributions it can make to a total com unications network that opens to the 0 0 citizens and institutions of the area a maximLm of opportunities for access to information, the sharing of messages, increased security, the saving of energy, and other such economic and social benefits made passible by advancing ocmmunications technology. 2. The Commission believes that the cable industry's knowledge of the service potential of communications technology, combined with the present competitive franchising atmosphere, makes the industry a more likely choice than the Commission itself for describing in detail how the cable communications goals of its member cities can best be fulfilled. Thus, the Commission has spent its efforts in articulating principles, and stating general and minimum require- ments, relying on franchise applicants to spell out the specific means and the improvement on minimums that will 'bring about an optimal realization of the principles expressed by the Commission and its member cities. 3. The Commission and its member cities believe that while cable franchising is part of the cities' duly authorized political pro- cess, it is important to create a broad base of objectivity in the franchising effort, so that the political process has the means for producing a franchise award based upon the merits of the best pro- posal. Thus, pains have been taken to rely on knowledgeable con- sultants, to take advantage of the franchising experience of other cities, to keep all meetings of the Commission and the City Councils open, and to create a registration procedure for cable company representatives. 4. The Commission believes that the cities' cable system should not only employ current state-of-the-art technology, but should also be built with a maximum of flexibility for taking advantage of new 63 -2- 0 0 canmunications technology benefiting subscribers as such technology becomes available in the future. It is expected that the operator of the system franchised by this procedure will incorporate all new services as such services became technically feasible should the cities in their discretion determine they desire such services. 5. The Commission seeks to provide the highest quality cable service uniformly throughout both cities at the earliest possible date. Therefore, the present franchise will be granted for one system on a two city-wide basis, subject to certain restrictions of initial service described under the definition of initial ser- vice territories. The Camd.ssion and the member cities at their discretion may make use of any other legal and practical means available through existing ordinances and the regulatory authority to achieve the goal of system -vide subscriber service at the earliest possible date. C. Evaluation Schedule And Timetable October 6, 1982 Formal issuance of RFP. November 29, 1982 Deadline for receipt of proposers' formal requests for written clarification of proposals. December 8, 1982 Co mission response to formal requests for clarifi- cation. -3- G4 0 January 6, 1983 Proposals due. February, 1983 Perfunctory hearings regarding proposals before each city council. April, 1983 Consultant's preliminary report and questions to proposers from consultant and Commission. Council decision to follow. April, 1983 Companies' responses to Consultant and Commission questions to proposers. May, 1983 Final Consultant Report. May, 1983 Public hearing before Commission regarding proposals ("Dog and Pony Shows"). May, 1983 Commission selects Company and authorizes produc- tion of ordinance to be recommended to cities. Lobbyist Restrictions The following resolution has been adopted by the Commission regarding its procedures for the communication between representatives of cable oam- panies and Ccmmission directors and alternates. 1.The Commission believes that aside from discussions initiated by individual directors for the purpose of answering individual questions, all communication worthy of consideration by one director is worthy of communication to all directors at a regular sche- duled meeting of the Commission. 2. in the democratic free exchange of ideas, a lobbyist best serves the perspective he or she represents by the open expression of that perspective before the entire Commission so that all directors have the opportunity to subject that represented perspective to public scrutiny and questioning. 3. The Commission believes that in order to credit any input it receives from individuals who are not members of the -4- 6� 0 0 Commission, the supplier of that information must be iden- tified along with the identification of any vested interest, association, cable company or the like repre- sented by said lobbyist. 4. The Commission requires that all individuals sharing information with individual directors, alternates, staff or the Commission as a whole, identify themselves and any vested interest, association, cable company or the like which he or she represents. 5. To this end, and in furtherance of these policies and objectives, the Commission hereby establishes a Permanent Lobbyist Registration List to be compiled by the Secretary -Treasurer of the Commission and made a permanent addendum to the minutes of the Commission, thereby on file at the city offices of each member of this Commission. The Commission requests that any individual, association, cable company or the like who supplies or intends to supply information to the Commission or any part thereof report in writing to the Secretary Treasurer the name and affiliation of the person communicating with the Commission or part thereof. 6. To facilitate compliance with these procedures, it is the intention of this Commission, its directors, alternates, and staff, torp esmmme that a lobbyist communicating infor- mation regarding cable television who is not identified for the purpose of the Permanent Lobbyist Registration List as to name and affiliation is attempting to influence the open decision-making process of this Commission in a way which is inconsistent and in violation of the policies of this Commission. 7. These policies and procedures shall be oom unicated to member city councils for their information and adoption if such be their desire. Additionally, this policy shall be communicated to the Minnesota State Cable Communications Board, all individuals attending regularly scheduled meetings of this Commission, all interested cable com- panies, and any other interested individual, association, or governmental unit. -5- 65 0 A. Defraying of Franchise Expenses 0 There will be no tax dollars spent on acquiring a cable franchise. Therefore, all franchising expenses incurred by the Commission and its member cities shall be passed on to the successful proposer. An itemized list of expenses will be submitted to the company on award of franchise. These expenses are to be paid in full at the time the franchise is signed by the company. Expenses incurred in the analysis of the proposals will be recovered from the proposal fee of each proposer. On the date of the State certification of the franchise, another itemized list will be submitted to the successful proposer (Grantee) for expenses incurred by the Commission and its member cities to negotiate conditions of the franchise. The Grantee must agree to pay all reasonable expenses incurred by the City for monitoring construction of the system. Reimbursement for additional expenses will be made on a monthly basis. Reimbursement for incurred expenses will cease upon the payment of the first franchise fee. B. Filing Fee A filing fee of $10,000.00 in the form of a certified check payable to the Burnsville/Eagan Cable Comnunications Commission will accompany each proposer's proposal. The purpose of the filing fee is to offset expenses incurred by the 67 • � 0 cities and the Caimission in the analysis and evaluation of proposals. Refunds to individual proposers of the filing fee not used in the analysis and eva- luation of specific proposals may be made to unsuccessful proposers at the option of the Commission. The unused portion of the filing fee from the suc- cessful proposer will not be refunded but will be deducted from each city's other franchising expenses. C. Public Hearings Every effort has been made to comply with the rules and regulations of the Minnesota Cable Communications Board and to allow for public input into the franchising process. Therefore, public hearings will occur on various dates throughout the process. All proposers will be given reasonable notice of meetings and be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard regarding their pro- posals. D. Franchise Term The term of the franchise will be 15 years, subject to renewal terms of the preliminary draft franchise. E. Franchise Fee The Grantee shall agree to pay to the Commission an annual fee of 5% of all grass revenues derived from the cable system as defined in the preliminary franchise. The annual fee may be subject to renegotiation at such time as federal or state authorities no longer regulate the amount of the fee, but in no event shall the renegotiated fee be less than 5%. F. Rate Change Procedures The Grantee shall agree as a condition precedent to the contractual rela- tionship established by the franchise to rate change procedures as outlined in the preliminary franchise. Proposers are advised to review the information which will be required to be submitted in an application for a rate change, all of which are included in the draft preliminary franchise ordinance. G. Applicable Rules and Regulations Grantee shall comply with all laws, statutes, rules and regulations and judicial interpretations thereof, of the following: United States of America Federal Communications Camiission State of Minnesota Minnesota State Cable Communications Board County of Dakota Cities of Burnsville and Eagan, Minnesota H. Year One Year one begins on the date the MCCB issues the certificate of confirmation. I. Filing of Proposal 35 copies of each proposal shall be submitted (sealed) with the caption "Cable Communications Proposal" addressed to: Mr. Paul Wood, Chairman Burnsville/Eagan Cable Communications Commission City of Burnsville 1313 E. Highway Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 Telephone: (612) 890-4100 Proposals must be notarized (may be filed in person or by registered mail) and will be accepted at the Burnsville City Hall until 2:00 p.m. January 6, 1983, at which time all proposals will be opened. The Coamission reserves the right in its sole discretion to extend the deadline to all proposers, if necessary. At the time proposals are submitted, the $10,000.00 filing fee shall be submitted by certified check payable to the Commission. J. Form of Proposal NOLs All proposals must be on the official forms jointly provided herein by the Commission on behalf of its member cities. The proposal forms have been designed to furnish all the pertinent data that will be used by the Conmission and its member cities in making its evaluation in accordance with the rules of the Minnesota Cable Communications Board. Specific instructions for each form are stated on the individual form. Space has been provided for specific and succinct answers to all questions and requests for data. All proposers must use only the pages of the official proposal forms (or identical extension pages if more room is needed). Alternative proposal forms are neither desired nor will they be considered. Any attempt to merely use the official forms as an "index" to other voluminous documents may disqualify the proposal from consideration. The official forms have been designed to facili- tate comparison of proposals. Evasive, imprecise or incomplete responses can only serve to the disadvantage of the proposer. Alternative proposals for ser- vices within a single application which, in effect, constitute a separate propo- sal will not be considered and may cause rejection of the entire proposal. (This does not prohibit the proposer from assigning channels to levels or tiers of service with differing monthly subscriber rates). The city reserves the right to reject any and all proposals with no financial penalty or obligation on behalf of the city. K. Clarification of Proposal Documents In the event that any proposer may have any doubts as to any terms, con- ditions, or provisions of these specifications or the meaning or interpretation thereof, the proposer may request information or clarification thereon by sub- 0 0 mitting such request in writing to: Mr. Thomas D. Creighton, Consultant Stern, Levine, Schwartz, Lifson & Creighton, P.A. 5005 South Cedar Lake Road Minneapolis, MN 55416 Telephone: (612) 377-8620 Such requests for information must be submitted no later than November 29, 1982. A written response to such request will be made as soon as approved by the Commission and will be sent to all known proposers who have been supplied RFPs. Only this type of official response shall be binding upon the cities and Commission. The proposer by submitting its proposal in response to the Request for Proposals, shall have evidenced the fact that it agrees that it has no unanswered questions with respect to these specifications and shall have no basis for withdrawal or modification of its proposal on the basis of misunderstanding. L. Amendment to Proposal Substantive amendments to proposals initiated by the proposer will not be considered except to acknowledge the involuntary changes, such as a change in ownership due to death. However, the Commission and the cities hereby reserve the right during the franchise negotiation process with the successful applicant to request clarification of the proposal or to require the addition of substan- tive material which the Commission or the cities in their sole discretion deter- mines has been inadvertently omitted from the proposal or is required in the franchise document for a more complete understanding of the system of which the city is authorizing construction. Correction by proposers of inadvertent errors submitted prior to the filing deadline will be considered. Correction of inadvertent errors submitted after -10- 0 0 the filing date may be considered at the discretion of the Commission and its consultant, if the proposer submits with its correction sufficient information to prove that the error was inadvertent, in the sole opinion of the Commission. Additional information or data may be requested by the Commission or its corr- sultant if in their sole opinion this would aid in preparing a fair and accurate analysis. M. Uniform Data Requirement Tables 1 and 2 of Section III of this Request for Proposals contain demographic data on the cities involved with this project. This data must be used by all applicants in developing their proposals (revenue and expense state- ment, household growth projections, and underground plant mileage estimates, etc.). Failure to do so will be considered grounds for disqualifying an appli- cant from consideration for the franchises. N. Preliminary Franchise Provisions for awarding a 15 year nonexclusive franchise to construct, operate, and maintain a cable ocrmmmications system serving the cities of Burnsville and Eagan, Minnesota are contained in the preliminary franchise ordi- nance which it is intended will eventually be adopted in similar form by both of the two cities. This preliminary ordinance is only a preliminary ordinance. It is antici- pated that the ordinance will be developed in considerably greater detail during the period of negotiations between the city and the successful proposer. The final ordinance as agreed to by the Commission and the successful proposer will be the ordinance which will be eventually submitted to the two cities for their consideration in their individual formal ordinance procedures. Each city's ordinance will incorporate the successful proposal by reference. 72- 0 O. Legal Qualifications Evidence must be presented to assure the Commission and the member cities that the proposer complies with the applicable rules, regulations and statutes of the FOC, the State of Minnesota, and the Minnesota Cable Communications Board regarding ownership and control of regulated franchises and businesses. Proposer will, of course, be required to comply will all legal standards pre- viously listed in Section II G., as well as any future changes in such legal standards. P. Financial Plan Pro Forma An important feature of the proposal is an adequate demonstration of the financial capacity to perform in accordance with the franchise ordinance, this RFP and the proposal. Failure to provide the detailed pro forma requested may be interpreted by the Commission and the member cities as evidence that the pro- poser is not properly qualified to receive a grant of the franchise. The pro forma data submitted should include plans and terns for debt and equity par- ticipation, guarantee of compliance with local ownership policies and restric- tions estrio-tions of the Commission, financial goals, as well as financial projections and assumptions. Complete detail is required pertaining to the equity of len- ders, now and envisioned for the future, and the absence of equity participation of local investors. All understandings for equity participation are to be pro- vided in detail whether written or oral, and if equity is provided by the com- pany in exchange for services, the extent and nature of the services are to be detailed. Tiered -service structures, if offered, must be factored into the revenue projections. Adequate documentation of the proposer's assumptions and research methods must be provided so that a fair analysis can be made of the projections. 73 -12- 0 0 For purposes of the financial pro forma, as well as all other forms and require- ments, year one begins on the date the franchise is certified by the State. Q. Rate Schedule The rates initially proposed must be substantiated in the pro forma state- ments by use of realistic levels of penetration. The cities intend to regulate all rates permitted by law to be regulated and proposers must agree to such reasonable regulation (as elaborated upon in the preliminary franchise ordinance) as a condition precedent to the cities entering into a contractual relationship with the cable company. Proposers shall indicate projected increase in the pro forma projections. All pro forma projections shall be made in constant 1982 dollars. R. Demonstrated Experience in Operating a Cable Corunications System Information will be solicited concerning the applicant's cable television franchise in other cities. This information will be used by the Cc mission to inquire into the applicant's experience in other oommuni ties in which franchises are held. S. Proposal Requirements This request for proposals contains selected requirements as determined by the cities and the Commission. The cities are establishing few requirements, as they desire that all proposers have maximum freedom to develop their own innova- tive proposals. The Communications Needs Reports of each city's individual advisory bodies to their City Councils based on assessing community needs are on file in the city offices of the cities of Burnsville and Eagan, Minnesota. Proposers are advised to take these reports into consideration in developing proposals. Further, proposers should carefully review all requirements and con- ditions set forth in the preliminary franchise ordinance, and familiarize them - 74 -13- 0 0 selves with the rules of the Minnesota Cable Communications Hoard and Chapter 238 of the Minnesota Statutes. The cities fully expect to enter into firm contracts with the successful proposer for the timely delivery of all elements of the successful proposal. All items being offered by proposers are considered to be freely and voluntarily offered and will be included in the franchise ordinances and became subject to the franchise ordinance enforcement provisions. The successful proposer must agree to support any waiver required by the Federal Communications Commission for any voluntary offer of services or technical standards that may exceed FCC requirements. All applicants will be required to: 1. Propose a construction plant so that the cable distribution system will pass and service will be offered to every residence: a) in the initial service area which is designated on the maps included in the Request for Proposals (RFP); and b) in any areas outside those indicated on the maps which reaches or exceeds an average density of 40 hones per street mile during the time of construction. 2. Propose uniform rates for those residences located in the initial ser- vice area, and for those areas which reach or exceed an average density of 40 homes per street mile during the time of construction. 3. Propose rates and conditions of service for any residence located out- side both the initial service area and the designated developing areas. 4. Propose uniform rates within the designated line extension areas as shv,m on the maps included in the RFP; 5. Propose a line, extension policy to be expressed so that service will be provided to the "designated" and "other" line extension areas when a certain number of subscribers contract for service for a certain period of time. -14- -.z5- 0 0 6. Complete construction of the subscriber distribution system (and insti- tutional network) within the initial service area within two years of cer- tification of the franchises by the MOM. 7. Meet or exceed all FCC technical standards. 8. Construct cable plant underground where all other utilities are underground and change from aerial to underground when any of the utilities so change. Any change from aerial to underground shall be at the Grantee's expense. Cost of underground drop to home shall be specified in the proposal. 9. Ccmply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and codes (federal, state, and local) relating to construction and construction stan- dards. Grantee shall not open or disturb the surface of any streets or public property without first obtaining a permit from the cities. Any work done shall be in a workmanlike manner and shall not endanger the health or safety of the citizenry. Any work done shall result in the returning of the street, public property or private property to good condition at the expense of the Grantee. Grantee shall further amply with all construction standards proposed in the preliminary draft ordinance. 10. Propose fire detection, medical alert, and home -security options for the system which shall be available to a resident whether or not a subscriber takes basic services. U. Initially deliver a single cable subscriber network of at least 54 downstream video channels to resident subscribers. Proposals shall include a system design and capital budget that will most easily accommodate the expansion of channel capacity to subscribers in the future, allowing for expansion of the plant capacity without installing a second cable underground in the future. Proposals shall include a system design using the highest capacity equipment available. 12. Provide a system capable of passing upstream and downstream signals -15- 76 0 0 simultaneously, and which shall be addressable and accommodate interactive ser- vices upon system activation. Proposals shall specify the number of channels which will be initially activated to provide two-way coomunications,(video, audio and digital). 13. Provide an audio -video emergency over -ride alert system. Grantee shall propose its plan for the declaration of emergencies. "Emergencies" shall be declared by an individual designated by each city. 14. Propose a mechanism or entity to reduce the occurrence of false alarms. Grantee shall propose its plan for payment of the expense of false alarms by cable company, user, of service, subcontracted supplier of service, or any com- bination thereof. The Ccmmission requires that the general system subscriber or the city not pay for false alarms. 15. Designate an emergency channel to be operated by city in time of emergency. This may be the access channels designated for each community. This channel may be a channel used for other purposes during non -emergencies. The emergency channel shall be designated on the first tier of service. 16. Guarantee their rates and not seek rate increases until two (2) years after construction is completed in the initial service area or until three (3) years after the franchise is certified by the state, whichever is longer. 17. Pay to each City an annual fee of 5% of all gross revenues (as defined. in preliminary draft ordinance) derived from the cable system within the cor- porate boundaries of each city. The annual fee may be subject to renegotiation at such time as federal or state authorities no longer regulate the amount of the fee, but in no event shall the renegotiated fee be less than 5%. The City reserves the right to require Grantee to pay the entire franchise fee, or any portion thereof, to any joint and cooperative oamiission cities may create to administer the franchises. The franchise fee shall be used only for cable related activities. Grantee shall agree to support any waivers required by the -16- 77 E 18. Agree to rate change franchise procedures as outlined in the preliminary ordinance. 19. Agree to an initial franchise term of fifteen years, with early renewal options in sole discretion of city. 20. Agree to a franchise renewal term of not more than ten years or on a year-to-year basis in the sole discretion of city. 21. Provide at least five channels for access use which should include public, education, government, library and.regional. 22. Grantee shall provide at least two leased access video channels up to a maximum of four leased access video channels. (Grantee is encouraged to exceed this minimum requirement. Grantee will be required to increase and shall agree to increase leased access capability at the request of city. Grantee may not increase the leased access capacity of the system as proposed without prior written permission of the City). 23. Grantee will provide EM service with individually processed signals and shall provide BM service which is capable of delivering audio from the video channels (such as movies) to the FM receiver of subscribers - simultaneous to video transmission. The FM service shall be available with any tier of basic service or by itself. 24. Designate an access channel for each community or provide the technical capability of narrow -casting an access channel within the corporate boundaries of each city. (Note: The Comnission is concerned with the possible expense of narrow -casting to a city. The Commission requires a system which can be developed so that the citizens of a city could always rely on a given channel to provide its specific access needs, and so that for instance one city council meeting would not be preempted by another live broadcast of such at saw time, on same channel. Therefore, the city will sacrifice narrow -casting to each 0 0 city in favor of programming and channel designations that could be made to meet the same needs of community casting on a designated channel). 25. Propose a system which is completely interconnected throughout the two communities and capable of interconnection with all cable systems now or hereafter geographically contiguous with the two community area or in the entire major metropolitan area, where feasible, pursuant to the procedure for same found in the preliminary draft franchise. 26. Include in its proposal a separate institutional teleco munications network passing institutions and businesses to accommodate audio, video and data communications and headend switching equipment that will allow signals from the institutional network. The cities reserve the right to delete the proposed institutional networks and associated expenses from the system design and finan- cial projections should the effect of the cost on regular subscriber rates prove to be undesirable. 27. Include in its proposal detailed capital costs, marketing plans, and anticipated revenues and effect on subscriber rates associated with designing and constructing the institutional network. 28. Include in its proposal its plan for servicing publicly owned buildings as designated in attachment A to this RFP, provided those buildings are also in the initial service area. Grantee shall agree to add additional public buildings at the request of the official body administering the franchise. The City recognizes that Northview Elementary School (Eagan Facility $31 - See Attachment A) is not within the initial service area. However, the City invites proposers to provide service to Northview Elementary School pro- vided said service will not adversely effect general subscriber rates. 29. Present evidence of financial resources that assure the city of the company's ability to complete the entire construction of the initial service area within the construction period specified in the proposal. 77 0 0 30. Cady with all applicable laws and rules regarding equal employment opportunity and fair labor standards. 31. Provide some form of programming "lockout" control. The lockout capabi- lity should provide for the discretionary deletion of individual programs or entire channels. 32. Demonstrate a commitment to providing a variety of origination programming; provide access support including color studio and location pro- duction equipment, post -production equipment and use of present video facilities; provide a plan accommodating growth of access production; provide production center(s) geographically located so that the greatest number of residents throughout the system may be located closest to production facilities, while assuring that at least sone form of production center is located within the cor- porate boundaries of both Burnsville and Eagan. 33. Provide for free installation rates and 158 discount on all other rates for those dwelling units in which the head of the household is a senior citizen (65 years of age or older), or handicapped. Proposers shall utilize the following definition of "handicapped person" in applying discounts for service: "One who, because of 'a substantial physical, mental or emotional disability or dysfunction requires special services in order to enjoy the benefits of our society, provided the person has shown a record of the disability or dysfunction." 34. Provide for uniform service rates for all other residential subscribers located within the initial service area with no other discounted service rates for classes of residential subscribers other than those discounts outlined in the previous paragraph. 35. Provide separate rates for installations to hares/businesses/industries located within 200 feet from the distribution system and those located 200.feet or more from the distribution system. 36. Provide for separate installation rates for aerial verses underground installations. -19- 8o 0 0 37. Provide monthly non -premium service at no charge (for subscriber and any institutional network services) to public and non-public schools, libraries, and city office buildings and otherwise within the initial service area and listed on attachment A (and any other primary governmental facility designated by city in the future). The installation and provision of any necessary converters shall be at cost. Y 38. State the company's policy regarding the subscriber's option to purchase a converter. 39. Construct the distribution systems to accommodate the needs of busi- nesses or industries providing that such acro miodation does not adversely affect service or rates for service to residential subscribers. Applicants should con- tact representatives of businesses and industries to determine their interest in cable, and should include results of such contacts in their proposals. 40. If a tiering structure is proposed, propose a low-priced tier which contains the access channels reserved for public, education, government, library, regional interconnect and leased use (2), local broadcast channels, community information channel, program guide, and other services to make it an attractive subscriber alternative, plus the option of a pay cable service such as Hone Box Office, Showtime or The Movie Channel but not such services as MN plus. Applicants must not propose a universal service tier whereby subscribers receive selected channels for no monthly service charge, but only an installa- tion cost. 41. If a tiering structure is proposed, provide a tiering structure whereby premium services such as movie channels may be purchased on an independant basis and need not be purchased in any sequential order. 42. Carry broadcast channels 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, and 17 on corresponding cable channels. -20- jg 43. Provide special interest programming in theareas of arts, health, edu- cation, consumer information, religion, national news, weather and sports, and programming serving the needs of special age groups, and that the services be available on a lower-priced tier to make them readily available to subscribers. 44. Provide autanated programming carrying national and regional news, weather information and weather radar, and that these services be placed on the lower-priced tier, so as to make them readily available to subscribers. 45. Provide a local news service, plus a 24 hour per day community infor- mation channel for promoting community events sponsored by non-oortmercial enti- ties with no advertising. The community information channel should be available an the lowest -priced tier of service. 46. Provide a system design so that subscribers with multi -cable outlets in one dwelling unit may view different programs on their television sets simultaneously. 47. Provide a system design for both subscriber and any institutional net- work that will accommodate point-to-point, point -to -multi -point, and multi- point -to -multi -point data communications. The cities are interested in having applicants propose: (a) dedicated bandwidth on the subscriber network to accommodate two-way transmissions among personal computers; and (b) dedicated bandwidth on the institutional network that may be leased by users and that will accommodate high speed data transmissions for simultaneous users. The need for providing connections to and contractual arrangements for additional data bases and/or additional bandwidth for data transmissions on the subscriber and institutional network will be considered during the periodic franchise renegotiation sessions. 48. Provide a system offering interactive services such as video games, business oommncations, subscriber responses, home computer tie-ins, and electronic newspapers, provided that the cost of subscriber equipment for and operating costs of providing said interactive services shall be borne by those subscribers opting for the service. This requirement should not be viewed as 8Z -21- 0 0 discouraging budgets allocating research and development funds which may be clearly delineated in the proposal and considered in the rates proposed. 49. State the company's programming policy of copyright ownership of local origination and access programming produced in conjunction with local groups and institutions. Said policy should include at least the requirement that should the oomnunity group own the copyright and at same point realize a profit from distributing the program produced, the group will reimburse the access programming entity up to the cost of actual production only. T. Evaluation Criteria 1. In general, applicants will be rated according to the following criteria which are not listed in any rank order: Services Broadcast Stations Origination (Special Interest) Programming Automated Programming Local Origination Access Channels Access Support and Policies Payable Interactive Services FM and Audio Services Institutional Services Tiered Service Structures Community Surveys Technical & Engineering Signal Reception Plans Emergency Override Subscriber Network Capacity Procedure for Delivery of Services Subscriber Network Coverage & Construction Institutional Network Technical Performance Reliability Regional Interconnection Maintenance and Repair -22- Chi 0 0 Financial and Management Financial Goal System Financing Rates & Rate Guarantees Financial Plans Performance in Other Systems Operated by Applicant Employment Practices Local Management Local Ownership 2. Applicants will not be judged on the order in which communities will be constructed and provided service. 3. Priority will be given to the proposer which (Note: Items within cate- gories do not appear in any rank order): High Priorities: Low Cost line extension policy Short time table for construction for initial service area Reasonable rates for basic and pay service Suitable access support Interactive service proposals (long range development -see lower priority below) An attractive low price tier as referred to in item No. 40 in the minimum policy requirements of the RFP Ability and funds for services upgrading growth Responsive repair service and maintenance Interconnection commitment Institutional Network develcpnent plans Automated programming Wide variety of pay options High Technical standards Company commitment to rate projections in its proposal Reasonable financial projections Medium Priorities Local origination programning plans Proven track record in other communities Short timetable for construction of remainder of system Lower Priorities* Wide variety of national and regional programs Interactive service proposals (short range plans - first three years of system activation) * NDTE: while these are lower priorities than the high and medium priorities listed above, they are still priorities of the cities. -23- 84 III. Qk'PR7DTPi7 NEEC6 ASSE,SSMENM. The needs assessments for each city are on file at the.city offices of the Cities of Burnsville -and Eagan, Minnesota IV.. IlE1NOGPAPHI(M See Tables I, 11, and maps attached. Ir u Burnsville 36,280 198 12,850 4,344 65 * 16,676 ESTIMNTED PLANT Eagan 20,700 107.35 9,090 3,453 AVERAGE* 21,000 MILEAGE IN INITIAL TOTAL MULTIPLE DWELLING SERVICE AREA TO BE STREET DWELLING DWELLING UNITS PER CONSTRUCTED CITY PCPULATION MILES UNITS UNITS STREET MILE ACREAGE UNDERGROUND Burnsville 36,280 198 12,850 4,344 65 * 16,676 67 Eagan 20,700 107.35 9,090 3,453 85 * 21,000 50 Qo These figures represent data collected from the city staffs of Burnsville and Eagan. This data reflects information for the entire cable service territory. An indication of data for the initial service area may be found in the assumptions used by OTIC Associates, Inc., when modeling a cable system to check for financial viability. *These data are as follows for the initial service area: • A. Total plant miles = 222 B. Aerial plant miles = 105 C. Underground plant miles = 117 D. Density = 92 homes per cable mile While every attempt has been made to insure the accuracy of the data, and each applicant is required to use the data when developing its proposal, the actual figures may vary from those shown on this table. The successful applicant will be required to construct and operate the system according to the actual circumstances encountered in each city. ATTACHMENT A continued �:li G.�.7p yl:: y: Ml YYI✓. Burnsville City Hall 1313 East Highway 13 Burnsville Fire and Police Departments 14011 Burn -Haven Drive Burnsville Ice Arena 251 Civic Center Parkway Independent School District 191 Administrative Offices 100 River Ridge Court Burnsville Senior High School 600 East Highway 13 Metcalf Junior High School (Eagan) Highway 13 & County Road 30 Nicollet Junior High School 400 East 134th Street Byrne Elementary School 11608 River Hills Drive Gideon Pond Elementary School 130th Street & Portland Avenue South Neill Elementary School 13409 Upton Avenue South Sioux Trail Elementary School 2801 River Hills Drive Sky Oaks Elementary School 100 East 134th Street Vista View Elementary School 13109 County Road 5 Echo Park Elementary School 14100 County Road 11 Dakota County Library 1101 west County road 42 Ridges Health Center 200 East Nicollet Boulevard (Private) .A BURNSVIIS E 1990 51,000 population 18,500 households 2000 59,000 population 21,400 households PAGAN 1990 37,000 population 13,350 households 2000 50,000 population 17,250 households (Data taken frau Metropolitan Council Comprehensive Plans) 1 W 87 ATTACHMENT A 1. Highview Park 41. Well Site Park 2. Country Home Heights Park 42. Thomas Lake Park 3. Lexington Park 43. Evergreen Park 4. Fire Station #2 44 Thomas Lake Elementary 5. Trinity Lone Oak School 45. Highline Trail 6. Burr Oaks Park 46. Rahn Elementary 7. Donnyrood Park 47. Rahn Park 8. Pilot Knob Park 48. Metcalf Junior High 9. Coachman Oaks Park 49. River Hills Park 10. Pilot Knob Elementary 50. Driver Test Center 11. Public Works Building 51. Dakota County Court Building 12. DeBoer Park 52. Ridgecliff Park 13. Gopher -Eagan Park 53. Johnny Cake Trail 14. Fish Lake Park 54. Dakota County Park 15. Dakota County Library 55. Walden Heights Park 16. Potential Civic Center Site 17. Police Department/City Hall 18. Historic City Hall 19. Fire Administration Building 20. Blackhawk Park 21. Peridot Path Park 22. Woodhaven Park 23. Fire Station #1 24. Sewer Treatment Plant 25. Cedar Grove Sewage Plant 26. Cedar Pond Park 27. Carnelian Park 28. Hilltop Park 29. Patrick Eagan Park 30. Northview Park 31. Northviea Elementary 32. Lakeside Park 33. South Oaks Park 34. Oak Pond Hills Park 35. Wedgewood Park 36. Capricorn Park 37. Ches Mar Park 38. Oak Chase Park 39. Carlson Lake Park 40. Fire Station #3 * See minimum requirement #28 regarding service to the above facilities, provided those facilities are otherwise within the initial service area. NOPE ALSO a number of the above facilities are "parks" or "trails" and will not require cable service. See attached map for details. (' kk j MLM1UV I• Fli COMMUNITY -r. - — �'tp1 J � • 17a .., 1 '.��.i.Li FACILITIES CITY OF ct 1... * 5 ON OAK R0111 6r 71ii :y .,j.@•il il.l r8 ,•�� �•�:'' _-'�-_�.': `��,�. � NIOHK. ' I 1I1IIr •/�% ,:�l 1j �- 9 � �: _ L' _.�1I}_ :: 1.�• I ��� ��"��j . v NKEE DOODLE ROAD pl PARKS { 1 —{ '�1%a r' ✓'r ,'r��..' 12 rl SCHOOLSjk 'e, I? GOVERNMENT ,` ' iF24 (�� { i^'ir.:P.. ° ''�j' 4 _ I� BUILDINGS .' �i I r�1 � . 22 >;1r �11`� LIBRARY I /� ' ' : ; • ii_'^I' •.'A" °o .�76a Er c ^ :Y W (' COUNTY N ROAD 30 ' W i a yid Lim L` r; L h ff ,M , ; 31 . ,�1it:""'�r- I:,,,: • �'. i T,.: ; U V '.`�f(i:';•y i'.. '��� .. n. ..... 7 �! Irv'®' l9 F. q�R�pA'D.. ''i --- i! .wLi. MLL[I ' !,•.• • fI '. A04f40U11T_ , EAGM • INITIAL SERVICE AREA00 a •i J .. T.T. „mac. EAGAN wagm fs 92, 11 .. �� L.• w � � � r� \ • � M.,. .l i Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Thirteen 0LIIrBLISINESS 0 WIND ENERGY SYSTEM & RADIO/TV TOWER ORDINANCE A. Consideration of a Wind Energy System & Radio/TV Tower Ordinance -- At the September 7, 1982 City Council meeting, a wind energy systems and radio/tv towers ordinance was reviewed by the City Council. Questions were raised regarding: 1. A request for information regarding the structural strength of a windmill base, and 2. Concerns regarding certain language requiring a professional engineer's inspection of the windmill. The City Administrator's office has addressed the issues raised by the City Council and enclosed is a copy of a memorandum from Administrative Intern Johnson, upon the direction of the City Ad- ministrator, that reviews the information as requested. This memorandum is found on pages94' through 9s The ordinance as proposed for consideration is round on pages _lam through /0( ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the pro- posed wind energy system and radio/tv towers ordinance. 31 0 MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN JOHNSON DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 1982 SUBJECT: ENERGY - WINDMILL ORDINANCE 0 Pursuant to your request, staff has reviewed the proposed windmill ordinance in an attempt to clarify the language concerns of the City Council. The Burnsville Buick dealer, the Jacobs Wind Electric Company and the Chief Building Inspector were contacted to provide information regarding this ordinance. The people from the Burnsville wick dealership were unable to provide staff with any helpful information. Ownership of the com- pany has recently changed '.hands and there was no one there who knew anything about windroIlls. They did, however, tell staff that the installation of their windmill was contracted out to an archi- tectural firm which worked with the Jacobs Wind Electric Company. Guarantees pertaining to the structural base of the windmill could not be obtained from the Buick dealership. They also told staff that their company does not sell Jacobs Windmills. Having no luck with the Burnsville Buick dealer, staff proceeded to contact the Jacobs Wind Electric Company. Their Minneapolis office was contacted and information dealing with windmills was requested. Staff received brochures regarding their product, but they were basically promotional and informational. We were then instructed by their Minneapolis office to talk with a dealer in Somerset, Wisconsin. Staff also requested information dealing with guarantees from these people. Copies of tower and foundation data were what was received. Staff never did receive any informa- tion dealing with the specifics of guarantees. In our telephone conversation with the Wisconsin dealer, staff learned the following: 1. A Jacobs Windmill dealer normally constructs the foundation for their towers; 2. They provide buyers of windmills with documentation that their towers will withstand winds up to 110 m.p.h.; 3. Their towers have received a professional engineer's certi- fication; and 4. The company will provide a certified engineer's inspection and stamped certified seal should they be required. This information should deal with questions in Subd. 2, Section C, as raised by the Council. 94 Windmill Ordinance Memo September 30, 1982 Page Two Staff also discussed the proposed windmill ordinance with the Chief Building Official. His comments were as follows: 1. Subd. 2, Section C, should contain language stating that documentation regarding the tower structure should be signed and certified by an "appropriate" professional engineer registered in the State o if- n�' nesNa. 2. All references to the Uniform Building Code should be changed to the State Building Code. 3. Subd. 3, Section B -- Chapter 2311 of the SBC deals with wind uplift loads and state statute makes it mandatory to build according to these regulations. The language in this paragraph is related to those regulations and should be left in the ordinance. A certified engineer's inspection would not be necessary provided that the Protective In- spection Department has the design criteria on file. Other than these comments the Chief -Building Official had nothing else to add to the ordinance. I hope that the information that has been obtained clarifies those issues raised by the City Council. Should you need additional information or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me. 9S 0 0 8-30-82 WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM .. AND RADIO OR TV TOWER HEIGHT LIMITATIONS SECTION 4._ PLACEMENT, ERECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS AND RADIO OR TV TOWERS. Subd. 1. Purpose, Construction and Definitions. A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section shall be to regulate the placement, erection and maintenance of wind energy conversion systems and TV or radio towers in the City so as to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City. B. Construction. All terms and words used in this Section shall be given their common sense meaning considered in context, except as hereinafter specifically defined. C. Definitions. 1. "Wind Energy Conversion System" -- A device such as a windcharger, windmill, or windturbine which converts wind energy to another form of usable energy such as electricity or heat. 2. "Radio or TV Antenna" -- Any radio or TV antenna in excess of the height limitation imposed by the Eagan Zoning Ordinance No. 3. "Tower" -- Any structure used to elevate a wind energy conversion system or a radio/TV antenna in excess of the height limitation imposed by the Eagan Zoning Ordinance No. Subd. 2. Conditional Use. A. No wind energy conversion system or TV/radio antenna as described in subdivision 2 shall be erected anywhere within the City without ( first submitting an application for and obtaining from the City a conditional use permit and compliance with the procedures provided in the Zoning Chapter: ?6 1 0 0 B. Application for said permit shall be made to the City in Cthe same manner as a building permit pursuant to City of Eagan ordinance code. A building permit formula should be used to calculate a fee which shall be payable at the time that the application is made. C. Prior to the issuance of a permit, the applicant shall provide to the City documentation or other evidence from the dealer or manufacturer that the wind energy conversion system has been successfully operated in atmospheric conditions and is warranted against any system failures under reasonably expected severe weather operation conditions as established by the building official. The application shall also provide to the City documentation that the tower structure for the system has received a professional engineer's certification. Subd. 3. Requirements and Specifications. All energy conversion systems and radio/TV towers (where applicable) C erected anywhere within the City shall comply with the following requirements: A. Applicable provisions of the Eagan Ordinance Code including the applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code (standards) therein adopted shall be complied with in addition to those requirements set out in this ordinance. B. Wind energy conversion system tower foundations shall be Z designed to resist two times the wind uplift calculated pursuant to the q�lr- Uniform Building Code as adopted by the City of Eagan and shall have a professional engineer's certification w- r °" • C. No part of any wind energy conversion system or TV radio tower or any equipment or lines used in connection therewith or connected thereto including any tower foundation areas, shall be constructed or main - 9 -7 2 tained at any time permanently or temporarily, in or upon any drainage or utility easement. D. No wind energy conversion system tower or TV/radio antenna tower shall be constructed within 20 feet laterally of any overhead electrical power line (excluding secondary electrical service lines or "service stubs".) Setback from said electric distribution lines shall be at least five feet. E. No wind energy conversion system or TV/radio antenna supporting tower shall exceed a height of 100 feet, or the distance from the tower to the nearest property line, whichever is less, measured from the base of the tower to the highest point of the tower, without a variance. F. Wind energy conversion systems utilizing propellers shall not have rotor diameters greater than 35 feet. G. All wind energy conversion systems shall be equipped with automatic speed control devices as part of their design. H. Blade arcs created by a wind energy conversion system shall be a minimum of 30 feet above the ground. I. Wind energy conversion systems and towers shall be adequately grounded for protection against direct strike by lighting and shall comply, as to electrical wiring and connections, with applicable federal regulations, Minnesota State Statutes and regulations, as well as City of Eagan codes. J. All lines and wires extending substantially horizontal above the ground from a tower or extended to a building, tower or structure, shall be at least eight feet above the ground at all points. K. Wind Energy Conversion Systems and commercial radio/TV towers shall be guarded against unauthorized climbing. The first 12 feet of the tower shall be unclimbable by design or enclosed by a 6 -foot high, nonclimbable fence with a lockable gate. 9g 3 0 0 Subd. 4. Insurance. All personal radio and TV towers shall be adequately insured for injury and property damage caused by collapse of the towers. All other applicants must provide liability insurance in the amount of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and $50,000 for property damage for any liability that may arise as the result of collapse, falling debris, electrical discharge or any other occurrence causing damage or injury to persons or property resulting from the wind energy system or radio/TV tower. Subd. 5. Towers. Only one tower exceeding the limitations of the zoning ordinance shall be permitted in a residential lot. Subd. 6. Abandoned Towers -- Removal. Any wind energy system which is not used for twelve (12) successive months commencing the effective date of this ordinance, shall be deemed abandoned and shall be removed as abandoned property. Subd. 7. Variances. Variances from the strict provisions of this Ordinance may be granted pursuant to the variance provisions of the Eagan Zoning Ordinance. Subd. 8. Existing Systems. Wind Energy Conversion Systems and radio/TV antennae in existence at the time of adoption of this ordinance shall be granted conditional use permits. However, safety measures which are requirements of this ordinance shall be complied with if not involving major structural change to the tower or substantial expense to the owner. Subd. 9. Violations. ( Any person violating the provisions of this ordinance shall be ` guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day such violation continues shall constitute a 5 99 L. Personal TV and radio towers shall be unclimbable by design for the first 8 feet or completely surrounded. by a fence in excess of 3 feet in height. M. Except for illumination devices required by FAA regulations and residential lighting in compliance with City codes, no wind energy conver- sion System or tower shall have affixed or attached to it in any way any lights, reflectors, flashers or other illumination devices. N. No wind energy conversion system shall have attached to it in any way any signs (does not include equipment labels), banners, or placards of any kind, except for one sign, not to exceed two square feet, which dis- plays suitable warning of danger to unadvised persons, the systems manu- facturer, and energy shutdown procedures. 0. All wind energy conversion systems and TV/radio antennas shall comply with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Noise Pollution Section (NPC 1 and NPC 2) as amended. P. All wind energy conversion systems and TV/radio antennas shall comply with all applicable Federal Communications Commission regulations as amended. Q. All such structures shall comply with all applicable Federal Aviation Administration regulations as amended. R. The interface of the wind energy conversion system with the consumer's electric service shall be performed pursuant to all applicable federal and Minnesota regulations. The owner shall notify their local elec- tric utility company in advance of such interface. The company shall review and comment upon any applications affecting their service. Both parties shall regulate their activities in a cooperative manner including the purchase of ( excess electricity by the utility company if required by state law. 100 4 separate offense and be punished accordingly. Subd. 10. Effect. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the passage and publication as required by law. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF EAGAN BY: ATTEST: BEATTA BLOMQUIST, MAYOR E. J. VANOVERBEKE9 CITY CLERK I iD( 6 This ordinance adopted: This ordinance published in the Eagan Chronicle: I iD( 6 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Fourteen PRELIMINARY PLAT - ODELL'S ADDITION B. David R. & Patricia B. Odell for Preliminary Plat, Odell's Addition, Consisting of Approximately One Acre and Containing Two Single Family Lots -- At the last regular City Council meeting, the recommendation of the Advisory Planning Commission to deny the preliminary plat for "Odell's Addition" was referred to the City Attorney's office for further review. There were a number of questions raised by the City Council pertaining to the inter- pretation of the existing garage as being a principal building on the newly proposed lot, a review of the restrictive covenants and other pertinent issues pertaining to the proposed preliminary plat. A copy of the City Attorney's letter is enclosed on pages 163 through JOS* for your review. Refer to pages 50-63, 9-21-82 City Council Packet, for a copy of the Planner's report and the APC minutes for additional information on this item. Contact this office if you have misplaced the infor- mation and a new copy will be distribured on Monday. Also enclosed on pages/06is a letter from Daniel Beeson which addresses a number o issues relating to the proposed preliminary plat for Odell's Addition. Mr. Terrance Votel, who is a property owner and also an attorney and is the spokesman for the residents adjacent to the Odell property, has written a letter to the Mayor and City Council and a copy of that letter is enclosed on pages IJZ, through �jr- • ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the recom- mendation of the APC to deny the preliminary plat entitled Odell's Addition. 102 HAUGE, SM=, EIDE c& HEL xR. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS 9505 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN (ST. PAUL). MINNESOTA 55122 PAUL H. HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 October 1, 1982 Re: O'Dell Preliminary Plat - McCarthy Ridge Dear Tom: AREA C.00E 512 TELEPHONE 454.4224 At the last Council meeting, the City Attorney's office was requested to address several issues that came up regarding the proposed plat for the O'Dells. We will try to -,enulherate the issues and clarify them as much as possible in this letter and hopefully aid the Council in reaching a well reasoned decision. 1. One of the big issues appears to be whether the Declaration of Restrictions recorded approximately at the time of the platting of McCarthy Ridge was still in effect and would prevent the creation of lots of less than one acre. Mr. Beeson, the attorney for the O'Dells, argues vigorously that Minnesota Statutes Section 500.20 limits the effectiveness of such a set of Covenants to thirty years from the date of the document creating the Covenants. Although this appears to be an issue that should probably be resolved between the private parties involved, we have done some research for the Council's information. Mr. Beeson's interpretation of Minnesota Statutes does appear to be accurate, however, wording does appear to leave one possible interpretation that would result in the .Covenants still being in effect. Section 500.20, Subd. 2 provides that Covenants shall be effective for thirty years after "the date of the deed or other instrument creating them". Cases on the statute involve condi- tions described within Quit Claim Deeds and Warranty Deeds. Thus, any conditions would have gone into effect at the same time as the deeds and the statute would be easily applied. However, in this particular situation the Restrictions or Covenants were created by a separate document. While that document was dated June 26, 1952, it is questionable whether the Restrictions or Covenants were created at that time. It could be argued. that these Covenants had no effect until August 29, 1952 when they were apparently recorded at the time of the conveyance of the first lot of McCarthy Ridge Addition. If this is a correct understanding of the facts, then the Declarations may have had no effect until the date of the first deed conveying out a lot in McCarthy Ridge Addition and the concurrent recording date of the Declarations and Restrictions. Thus, it could be argued that the Covenants are effective from August 29, 1952 until August 29, 1982, in which case they would still be in effect in that Minnesota Statutes 500.20, Subd. 2 was repealed as of August 1, 1982. 1o3 Mr. Hedges • • October 1, 1982 Page Two It would appear that the Covenant issue is not one that necessarily should be addressed by the Council. However, the information seemed relevant and it might be advisable for the parties to resolve the issue if necessary prior to commencing work on a second dwelling. 2. It was suggested at the last Council meeting that the remaining residents of McCarthy Ridge Addition might consider applying for Estate Zoning for their large lots. The provision for Estate Zoning is found in Ordinance Section 52.07, Subd. 3.5, however, the process of obtaining Estate Zoning is found in Section 52.09, Subd. 5(b), which requires that a petition of owner or owners of property to be rezoned be presented to the Council. It would appear that the owners would have to sign such a petition and notice to neighboring landowners would be provided pursuant.to Zoning Ordinance. 3. It was pointed out at the last Council meeting that the proposed preliminary plat for the O'Dells appears to meet all of the minimum requirements of Subdivision Ordinance No. 10. Our research indicates that this is indeed true. The opposing parties argue that the meeting of minimum requirements may not be enough and cite a White Bear Lake case. This case does not appear to be applicable to the present sitaution in that it was a case involving a special use permit where the permit holder changed the use from a 10' x 18' temporary trailer to a 10' x 50' trailer on a lot with the potential for permanent residency. In our opinion this case is very distinguishable from the present situation. It can possibly be argued that there is an intent by Ordinance No. 10 which has to do with planning and aesthetics. Naturally it is hard to use this as a basis for denying a plat since the reasons: may not be considered valid and thus a decision might be considered unreasonable and arbitrary. Another problem with making such a decision based on intent would be the precedent value of prior decisions of the Council in regard to other lot splits and plats. 4. The objecting parties also cite Ordinance Section 52.06, Subd. 24(b)(13) which provides that "all land zoned residential R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and R-5 shall be platted prior to placing any structure thereon. . . " Taken by itself, this wording would make it impossible to have two new lots with a garage on one and house on the other prior to the platting process. However, as we have attempted to point out to the parties, this particular clause comes under headings in the Ordinance involving site, design and development requirements for multiple dwelling sites. It is quite clear that the wording was provided to prevent construction of units with common party walls before actual platting unless it was absolutely necessary. Literal interpretation of the words taken out of context would probably have prevented a great deal of the construction and platting ever done in the City of Eagan. 5. Another major issue and potential for compromise of this situation is the location of the oversized garage on one proposed new lot. It has been suggested that the garage would now be in the front setback area and be within the 30 -foot requirement under Zoning Ordinance and thus become a nonconforming use that could be required to be corrected prior to approval of the plat. However, it should be pointed out that the garage as it presently stands is a nonconforming use in that it is located within 30 feett,of a public street in violation of Ordinance Section 52.07, Subd. 5. Therefore, Mr. Beeson has argued that the garage is an existing /04 Mr. Hedges October 1, 1982 Page Three nonconforming use that is not being expanded because of the plat. He is suggesting that the nonconforming use is not relevant to the request for pre- liminary plat. Continuance of a nonconforming use appears to be allowed under Ordinance Section 52.06, Subd. 3, yet it might be argued that front setbacks are distinguishable and more important than side setbacks on streets. In conclusion, it appears that the Council does not have a good basis for denial of the plat in relation to standards set by any of the ordinances. Any denial would apparently have to be based upon the intent of the Subdivision Ordinance as it relates to planning and aesthetics and possibly the resolution of the Covenant issue between the private parties. It should be noted that it is possible that in spite of the granting of the preliminary plat, the other owners of McCarthy Ridge may be able to prevent the O'dells from acting upon their plat through enforcement of the Covenants if they are indeed valid. skk Very truly yours, HAUGE, SMITH, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. David G. Keller %�5 9 LAW OFFICES LeVander, Gillen, Miller, Anderson & Kuntz 402 DROVERS BANK BLDG. • 633 SOUTH CONCORD ST. • P.O. BOX 296 SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 • TELEPHONE (6121 451-1631 September 28, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Eagan City Council 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, PIN 55122 0 HAROLD "VANDER ARTHUR GILLEN ROGER C. MILLER HAROLD LEVANDER. JR. PAUL H. ANDERSON TIMOTHY J. KUNTZ DANIEL J. BEESON U'If), Re: Odell's Addition Application of David R. 'and Patricia B. Odell for Preliminary Plat Approval Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: At the previous meeting of the City Council the above matter was referred to the City Attorney for a legal opinion regarding two matters relating to the Odells' application for preliminary plat approval. The first item related to the validity of certain covenants dated June 26, 1952 relating to the McCarthy Ridge Addition. The second item related to the authority of the Council .to require removal or destruction of a valid, pre- existing nonconforming use, i.e., the detached garage on the southeast corner of the premises (Lot 2), as a condition to granting plat approval of a single lot subdivision which meets all of the specific requirements of the Eagan platting and zoning ordinances. On behalf of the Odells, allow me to respond as follows. First, I must reiterate that the matter of the existence or non-existence of the covenants is a private civil matter. It is totally unrelated to the Council's duty to determine whether the proposed plat meets the specific requirements of City Ordinance No. 10. Nevertheless, for the benefit of the objecting property owners, the Council has requested a legal opinion regarding the validity of the covenants. As a matter of law, the covenants automatically ceased to be valid and operative on June 26, 1982, for the following reasons: Minnesota Statutes Section 500.20, Subd. 2 provides: "All covenants... hereafter created by any other means... shall cease to be valid and operative 30 years after... (the) instrument creating them; and after such period of time they may be wholly disregarded." /E 0 0 blayor and City Council Members Page Two September 28, 1982 This statute was considered by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Matter of Turners Crossroad Development Co., 277 N.W. 2d 364 (Minn. 1979), in which a restriction on land use was created by a deed dated April 23, 1949. The court held that the statute, Section 500.20, Subd. 2, was constitutional. It also held that the restriction automatically terminated on April 23, 1979, by reason of this statute. The same conclusion was reached in the earlier case of Housing and Redevelopment Authority v. United Stockyards Corp., 309 Minn. 331, 244 N.W. 2d 275.(1976). Therefore, restrictive covenants created after April 27, 1937 (the effective date of Section 500.20, Subd. 2), automatically cease 30 years after the date of the instrument creating the restrictions, and thereafter may be wholly disregarded. This opinion is consistent with Minnesota Title Standards, Standard 91A. Laws 1982, C. 500, Section 5 repeals section 500.20, Subd. 2. Minnesota Statutes Section 645.02 provides that acts of the legislature are effective on August 1 next following their final enactment, unless a different date is specified in the act. A different date is not specified in Laws 1982, C. 500 for the effective date of the repealer. Therefore, the repeal of Section 500.20, Subd. 2 was effective August 1, 1982. Under the Turners Crossroad case, the restrictive covenants as to the Odell property automatically ceased on June 26, 1982, by virtue of Section 500.20, Subd. 2, which is prior to the effective date of the repeal of that section. Consequently, the restrictive covenants are no longer operable as of June 26, 1982, and the later repeal of the statute does not affect the situation. This conclusion is consistent with the opinion of the Title Standards Committee of the Minnesota State Bar Association which has recommended the Amendment of Title Stan- dard 91A to provide that all covenants, conditions and restric- tions created on and after April 27, 1937, may be disregarded "if the thirty-year period ends prior to August 1, 1982." (See attached Exhibit A.) As to the second issue, as a matter of law the Council may not condition or deny approval to the Odell preliminary plat on the basis that the garage currently in existence and use on proposed Lot 2 is a nonconforming use. l Under -the current zoning ordinance the garage is a valid, pre-existing noncon- forming use. Where the platting does not create the noncon- forming use, and the plat meets all of the zoning and platting requirements, the Council has no discretion to deny plat approval. Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 1The garage is presently located within the minimum 30 -foot setback requirement imposed by Section 52.07, Subd. 5(A). The garage predates adoption of this ordinance provision. /07 0 0 Mayor and City Council Members Page Three September 28, 1982 297 Minn. 294, 211 N.W. 2d 358 (1973). As the Supreme Court held in Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1 206 N.W. 2d 19 (1973): It is now settled that where a specifies standards to apply i to arant a (special use nermif lLnpnasis aaaea.) See also, zy Crystal, 283 Minn. 192 167 N.W. It has similarly been held that "a denial of the application for the (conditional use permit) must be based on the fact that some standard of the zoning ordinance was not met by the applicant's plans." Inland Construction Companyv. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374, 195 N.W. 2d 558 (1972). The same standard applies to the determination of whether to grant or deny the Odell plat. National Capital Corporation v. City of Inver Grove Heights, 501 Minn. 335, 222 N.W. 2d 550 (1974). The Odell garage is an impressive oversize detached garage with dimensions of approximately 24' x 26'. (See Exhibits E and F presented to Council at September 21st Council meeting.) It is large enough to accommodate two full size automobiles, or an automobile and large motor or sail boat. The garage is insulated, heated and has been continuously used. Its estima- ted value is at least $10-12,000 and represents a substantial enhancement to the value of the property. The cost of removal to a new on-site location would exceed $5,000-5,500.00 for moving and related expenses for construction of a new foundation. This is cost prohibitive and not a viable alternative. Nor is it an option which the Council may legally consider. The present Eagan zoning ordinance Section 52.06, Subd. 3, expressly provides as follows: The adoption and provisions of this Ordinance shall not prohibit the continued use or expansion or re- building of any use or building existing upon the date of adoption of this Ordinance which would have conform- ed to the provisions of Sections 6.01 through and including 6.06 which was repealed by this Ordinance. (See Section 52.02.) Said expansion shall not be interpreted to permit an initial development in accord- ance with said repealed ordinance. Said expansion or rebuilding shall only relate to existing buildings or uses. (Emphasis added.1 Jos 0 0 Mayor and City Council Members Page Four September 28, 1982 The garage was a valid, pre-existing nonconforming use at the time of the adoption of the current zoning ordinance. Regard- less of whether the parcel is subdivided, the garage will remain a valid, pre-existing nonconforming use "grandfathered" in under the zoning ordinance. The Eagan ordinance simply recognizes a traditional restriction on the City's power to enact zoning ordinances in that such restrictions must be subservient to vested property interests and uses already established. Hawkins V. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549, 80 N.W. 2d 863 (1957). Eagan must either permit the valid nonconforming use to remain or, in the alternative, eliminate the use by exercise of the right of eminent domain. Freeborn v. Clamssen, 295 Minn. 96, 203 N.W. 2d 323 (1972). In the present case the garage is presently a nonconforming use. It is not created by the event of platting. It will continue to exist as a valid, nonconforming use regardless of whether the Odell parcel is or is not subdivided into two separate lots. The existence of the garage is a valid, nonconforming use that is functionally unrelated to the platting ordinance and its requirements. While it may be argued that the act of platting constitutes an impermissible "expansion" of the nonconforming use, reference to the controlling Ordinance Section 56.03, Subd. 3 again demonstrates that the garage use may not only be continued, but it may be expanded as well. Therefore, even if the act of platting were viewed as an expansion of the existing nonconform- ing garage use (which applicants maintain it is clearly not) the ordinance expressly allows "all" such "expansions". See Girvan v. County of LeSeuer, 305 Minn. 175, 232 N.W. 2d 888 (1975). The only real issue before the Council is whether or not, under existing laws and ordinances the Odells have fully complied with all ordinance requirements. Twin City Red Barn, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 291 Minn. 548, 192 N.W. 2d 189 (1971). It should be agreed that in all respects the Odell preliminary plat application meets all of the specific requirements of the platting and zoning ordinances. As observed by the Supreme Court in National Capital Corporation v. Village of Inver Grove Heights, supra: /09 0 0 Mayor and City Council Members Page Five September 28, 1982 The Odell plat meets all of the requirements of the Eagan platting and zoning ordinances. The -Council, therefore, has no discretion to deny the preliminary plat application. To do so would result in denial of due process to the Odells, as well as a taking of private property for public use in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions, as well as federal law. Minn. Const., art. IX, 91; U.S. Const., amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Odells therefore renew their request that the City Council gait their application for preliminary plat approval. submitted, r el/JJ Beeson DJB: cc: Paul Hauge Dave Keller, Attorneys for the City of Eagan David and Patricia Odell ��Q b. With respect to a limited partnership formed after December 31, 1980, the Certificate of Limited Partnership shall be filed with the Secretary of State but need not be filed of record in the office of the County Recorder/Registrar of Titles where the principal place of business of the limited partnership is conducted. The conveyance must be executed in the partnership name by one or more of the general partners. RESOLVED: That the Title Standards Committee recommends that Standard No. 91A be revised to read as follows: STANDARD NO. 91A Adopted and Approved June 24, 1977 Approved and Amended June 22, 1979 VALIDITY OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, OR RESTRICTIONS THIRTY OR MORE YEARS OLD All covenants, conditions, and restrictions created on or after April 27, 1937, by any means, including, but not limited to, a grant, deed, devise, conveyance, declaration, or will, which, at the time of examination are more than thirty years old, may be disregarded by an examiner if the thirty-year period ends prior to August 1, 1982. The thirty-year period is to be measured from the date of the document or instrument creating the covenants, conditions or restrictions, except that, as to a will, the thirty-year period is to be measured from the date the will is admitted to probate. CAVEAT: This Standard does not apply to conservation restrictions obtained under the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 84.64 and 84.65, . or to scenic easements obtained.under"the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 104.37, or to utility, drainage, access or other easements. Authority: Minn. Stat., Sec. 500.20, Repealed by Laws of Minnesota 1982, Chapter 500. Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of South St. Paul v. United Stockyards Corporation, 244 N.11.2d 275 (Minn. Sup. Ct. July 1976). Minn. Stat., Sec. 645.17(1). -In the Matter of the Petition of Turners Crossroad Development Co. for an Order Directing Deletion of a Restriction, Hennepin County, NW 2nd , reprinted in Finance and Commerce March 16, 1979. EXHIBIT A 0 LAW OFFICES REDMIS & VOTEL JAMES A. REDING TERRANCE W. VOTE 614 DEGREE OF HONOR BUILDING LAURA J. McKNIGHT SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 JOHN W.2WEBER September 29, 1982 TO: The honorable members of the City Council of the City of Eagan Dear Madame Mayor and Eagan City Councilmen: (612) 224-3841 This letter is written concerning the continuing consideration by the City Council of the proposed plat for O'Dell Addition. At the outset, I wish to express my- appreciation and the ap- preciation of -my eight neighbors who have joined with me in opposing the O'Dell Addition for the indepth evaluation and consideration of the issues involved. The city staff, Planning Commission and City Council have all been very open, considerate and cooperative in the matter. At the City Council meeting which occurred on Tuesday, September 21, 1982 concern was expressed regarding the extent of the City Council's discretion in this matter. The City Council, of course, does not want to make a decision which could later be considered to be arbitrary or capricious. In that regard, I wish to point out to the members of the City Council the language of a Minnesota Supreme Court case which was decided on September 10, 1982. The caption of the case is White Bear Docking and Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear Lake. The Minnesota Supreme Court overruled a District Court decision which found that the City of White Bear Lake had acted capriciously and arbitrarily in denying a special use permit. In finding that the City's decision was proper, the Supreme Court commented: "The setting aside of routine municipal decisions should be reserved for those rare instances in which the City's decision has no rational basis. Except in such cases, it is the duty of the judiciary to exercise re- straint and accord appropriate deference to city authorities in the performance of their duties. The mere fact that the trial court might have reached a different conclusion, had it been a member of the counsel, does not not invali- date the judgment of the City officials if they acted in good faith and within the broad discretion accorded them by the ordinance itself. In determining whether or not the City Council's decision could be based upon esthetic considerations, the court cited a previous case to the effect: f12 Page 2 0 0 "Nothing touches a citizen so personally as his daily environment. A healthful, safe, efficient, and pleasant living area to return to at the end of the day -is as essential to the well-being of a citizen as good physical conditions under which to work. Human values differ, social and economic status differs among areas, and certain legal restraints are present which require the set- ting of minimum, reasonable and uniform stan- dards, the "minimum" may be acceptable in one part of the community while in others, resi- dents may desire higher standards." We believe that the language used by the court in this very recent Supreme Court decision does indicate that the City has very broad discretion in which to act under their ordinance with respect to this platting matter, and that they are not constrained to approve an application for plat merely because it meets minimum standards. As has been pointed out by the opposition to the O'Dell plat, the standards which exist on McCarthy Ridge have existed for some per- iod of time and certainly are higher standards that the minimum standards prescribed. It is obvious that in this fully developed neighborhood the City Council would be within the scope of a reasonable decision to disallow the proposed plat because it so drastically departs from the higher standards which have been established in McCarthy Ridge. It is also interesting to note that the Supreme Court case indi- cated above involved, partially, a decision by the White Bear City Council based upon setting of an adverse precedent. In that case, the applicant wanted to place a mobile home and the City Council in denying the application indicated that to allow this would be setting a precedent for future applications. As the Eagan City Council well knows, one of the concerns of the opposition to the O'Dell plat is that it would be setting an adverse precedent for future subdivision of our area, the adverse results of such sub- division are obvious. The next item that I wish to bring to the attention of the City Council relates to Ordinance No. 52,E the Eagan Zoning Ordinance. Subdivision 24b 13 as amended in 1915 indicates that with respect to platting, all lands zoned R-1 shall be platted prior to placing any structure thereon. Both of the newly created lots under the proposed O'Dell Addition would already have structures thereon. Lot 1 would have the existing house, and Lot 2 would have the existing garage. I believe that this provision of the ordinance is further support for our position that this portion of McCarthy Ridge which is already platted cannot at this time be re -platted as the O'Dell's would propose. X13 Page 3 • • The next consideration which we propose requires the denial of the proposed plat is the current location of the existing garage. The existing garage would considerably violate front lot line setback requirements. The definition section of Ordinance 52 provides: Section 00 - Lot line - front. That boundary of a lot which abuts an existing or dedicated public street and in the case of a corner lot, it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street. Therefore, it is clear that the front lot line of Lot 2 of the proposed addition is that lot line which fronts along McCarthy Road as this is the only public dedicated street upon which Lot 2 abuts. The ordiance clearly provides for a thirty foot front lot line setback.' Ordinance Section 52.06 subd. 5c provides: No accessory building shall be less than the minimum required setback for the principal building along a public street, ---. Of course, under the definition section of the ordinance, a garage is an accessory building. Ordinance 52.06 subd. 5b provides that: "no accessory building or structure other than a fence or a temporary construction office shall be permitted on any lot in an "R" district prior to the time of construc- tion of the principal building to which it is accessory except a residential garage, which prior to construction of the residence can be used only for storage purposes pertaining to and until the completion of the main structure." We further contend that this section of the ordinance prohibits the existence of this garage on the newly created lot. Further, the garage is not being used for storage purposes pertaining to the completion of any main structure. In fact, the garage appears to be let to third parties who are carrying on some type of a pro- ject relative to restoration or reconstruction of a vehicle. On the night prior to the dictation of this letter, (the night of September 28th) there were two trucks and a car located at the garage, and there was activity in the garage until after 11:00 p.m. The proposed O'Dell Addition has presently located utility poles along the front of the newly created lots. In at least one in- stance, the utility pole and its guy -wire are in close proximity 114 Page 4 to the public street. This is an unsafe condition. The city planner and city engineer should give consideration to the move- ment of these utility poles and require this as a part of any possible final plat approval. At the extreme southwest corner of the O'Dell property, McCarthy Road makes a sharp right angle turn. Because of the uphill grade and the necessity to reduce speed for the turn, this often creates traffic problems when the road conditions are icy. In addition, extreme care must be exercised in negotiating this turn when a vehicle, travelling in either direction, meets opposing traffic. This traffic problem should be alleviated by dedication of a suf- ficient portion of the southwest corner of the O'Dell Addition to alleviate this drastic turn. We believe that inadequate attention has been directed to these safety considerations. Subdivision 3a of Ordinance No. 10.04 provides that blocks within subdivions shall not be less than 400 feet in length. The pro- posal of the O'Dell's does not meet this requirement. Section 10.06, subd. 1K of the subdivision ordiance requires that prior to final plat approval the developer shall be responsible for installing underground utility lines capable of handling a street lighting system. The administrative staff reports do not appear to require compliance with this ordinance. Finally, we wish to point out that the O'Dell's are proposing to create two new lots by their proposed plat. There is not "an existing lot" and "a new lot". There are in fact two newly created lots, and both of the newly created lots of this proposed plat should comply in all respects with all ordinance require- ments. In other words, since the applicants have chosen to attempt to re -plat their entire property, there is no use or con- dition which can be considered to be "grandfathered in" and all conditions and uses must meet the requirements of all zoning and subdivision ordinances. As the Council can see from the foregoing recitals, there are many instances in which the proposed plat does not comply with existing zoning and subdivision ordinances, and which compel the denial of this plat as presently proposed. We again thank you for your careful consideration to this matter r•:., because of the great importance which your decision will have. clr 115 Very truly yours, Terrance W. Votel 0 • Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Fifteen PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SHEFFIELD ADDITION C. Gabbert Development, Inc., for a Preliminary Plat, Sheffield Addition, Consisting of Approximately 11.36 Acres and Containing 44 Single Family Lots -- At the last regular City Council meeting held on September 21, 1982, a recommendation from the Advisory Planning Commission to approve the preliminary plat for Sheffield Addition was given consideration. The City Council had a number of concerns about the reduction in lot size and other related issues and therefore the preliminary plat consideration was continued until the October 5, 1982 meeting. The developer has revised the preliminary plat and the City Planner has provided an update of the revisions. A copy of the new report is found on pages I/7 through JZ2 for your reference. For additional information on tfiis item, ref-er to pages 75-76 of the last City Council agenda packet. If anyone has misplaced this information, feel free to contact the City Administrator's office and an additional copy will be made available on Monday. Also enclosed in your packets without a page number is a larger drawing of this addition. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the pre- liminary plat for Sheffield Addition as recommended by the APC or as revised by the developer and/or City Council. //G TO: THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY AIY•1IIQISTRATOR FROM: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 1982 • r • r m� r� r • • � � 1ws: ; At the September 21, 1982 City Council meeting, there seemed to be sane confusion between Flamed Development zoning and densities designated in the Eagan Comprehensive Guide Plan. In 1975, the City of Eagan approved the Lexington South Planned Development consisting of approximately 1,140 acres. In this Planned Development, there were 695 acres of residential development ranging from single family to multiple development. In the attached exhibit is the land use approved by the City Council in 1975. The area of concern, or the area where Sheffield is proposed, is desig- nated as an R-2 (Mixed Residential, 3-6 units per acre). In the Plan- ned Development zoning, the developer has the right to develop between 3-6 units per acre and be consistent with the Planned Development agree- ment for Lexington South Planned Development. Therefore, the developer has the option as to what density he selects between the 3 and 6 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Land Use Guide also uses the same legend as was used in the Lexington South Planned Development. This is where the confusion appears to be is in regard to the same legend in the Comprehensive Guide Plan as in the Lexington South Planned Development. The Comprehensive Guide Plan shculd be used only to guide development where areas in the City have not been zoned or if there is a proposed zoning change, the Com- prehensive Guide Plan should be used to guide the development toward the overall plan that the City is trying to implement. In reviewing the Eagan Comprehensive Guide Plan, Chapter X, Page 6, Paragraph H defines the re- lationship between Comprehensive Guide Plan and zoning. Enclosed is this portion of the Coiprehensive Guide Plan for your review. The second concern regarding Sheffield Addition which was expressed at the September 21, 1982 City Council meeting was in regard to the small single family lots. Even though the developer is within the density allowed in the Iaxington South Planned Development, the City Council still has the option to approve the detailed plan. It is staff's understanding that the Council has the right to reammend that the developer be allowed small single family lots, twin homes or duplex, or townhouse to be constructed within the 3-6 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, density should not be the issue but the design as to what type of dwelling units the City wishes to provide should be the issue to be considered. In regard to the small single family lots, the City Council indicated that 50' widths were too narrow and that 60' would be more favorable if single family were to be allowed within this general area. The developer has re- vised the detailed plan in accordance with the recanrendations of the City Council. The developer has submitted two revised plans to be considered at the October 5, 1982 Council meeting. On Plan A, the applicant is pro- posing 42 single family lots. All lots have a 60' width at the 30' setback 117 0 0 Update on Sheffield Preliminary Plat September 30, 1962 Page two line of a public street. Plan A also proposes sliding the loop road approxi- mately 25-30' south of the original plan. This allows an additional eye -brow to be provided and maximize the land which contains Lots 1-15, Block 1, Shef- field Addition. The gross acreage of the development has not changed and still retains 11.36 acres. The public rights-of-way in the proposed plat is 2.3 acres and there would be 4.64 dwelling units per net acre. The second plan submitted is just keeping the existing loop street as proposed in the original plan. The applicant increased the lot size in order that all lots would have a 60' width at the 30' setback. This plan reduced the origi- nal lots by three and the new proposal will contain 39 single family lots. The acreage is the same as the original plan of 11.36 acres, public rights- of-way would contain 1.90 acres and there would be 3.433 units per net acre. The applicant is prepared to review each of the revised plans with the City Council at the October 5th meeting. The applicant is still proposing to con- struct single family lots instead of proposing duplex or townhouse develop- ment on this particular site. If anyone has any questions regarding the revised plans or would like further information, please feel free to contact me at the Eagan City Hall. u «• ,.t- raj' T" _ /f;1/`•••S •: 2'2A 1980-1983 tta�i/ {�,�' :.,. i ii�•� :,F�E 3 ryes-1ms a-•��...e•:. f.;� .._•i'., :i 4 RBS -1980 ia+... cl Par S�l!'1 !• 'R4 "Sc 4 R4 fff �T.l,� .�• .• Biu: '\� 1i• � f��__.Ri._ j� U r Com/. CX*I:BIT Y Lexington South ,.t- raj' T" _ /f;1/`•••S •: 2'2A 1980-1983 tta�i/ {�,�' :.,. i ii�•� :,F�E 3 ryes-1ms a-•��...e•:. f.;� .._•i'., :i 4 RBS -1980 ia+... cl Par S�l!'1 !• 'R4 "Sc 4 R4 fff �T.l,� .�• .• Biu: '\� 1i• � f��__.Ri._ j� Land Use Plan 111 ■t JN.Jrl.1}dIJJyNa Ili n,ll.w\1Ni.wwy M nMy1. (OhJJMea Lm liar 08 ,.b,. Ode ©r.�.r... w OdkhM 1•.11 tlVV. N t. ?�,�""V' W? 131it „ry•r ,r,:�`.,Y t'^ �:J �__- _ ':.'Yiv' ..��•1j1+� �.'('�a'r".`.'�i'L.4r. ,V, •+r.�Y7. J.r_.:.?n`.4l-tc U r Land Use Plan 111 ■t JN.Jrl.1}dIJJyNa Ili n,ll.w\1Ni.wwy M nMy1. (OhJJMea Lm liar 08 ,.b,. Ode ©r.�.r... w OdkhM 1•.11 tlVV. N t. ?�,�""V' W? 131it „ry•r ,r,:�`.,Y t'^ �:J �__- _ ':.'Yiv' ..��•1j1+� �.'('�a'r".`.'�i'L.4r. ,V, •+r.�Y7. J.r_.:.?n`.4l-tc 0 0 H. Relationship Between Comprehensive Guide Plan & Zoning In the implementation of the Eagan Comprehensive Guide Plan, the City does not expect to initiate a rezoning of all of the areas where a conflict may exist between Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use proposals and existing zoning. There may be isolated instances where a rezoning may be initiated by the City to resolve a land use conflict that is currently adversely affecting land values. These would be the exception rather than the norm. The City of Eagan has executed several Planned Development Agreements over the past several years. There are many instan- ces where the Planned Developments show higher densities or more extensive commercial development than that proposed under the Comprehensive Guide Plan. These are not necessarily con- sidered conflicts between zoning and the Comprehensive Plan; rather, they are viewed as current trends and an expression of development patterns that the City expects to occur. Time has shown that some of the Planned Development proposals may be unrealistic in terms of density and rate of development. However, the development is permitted to occur as specified in the Planned Development Agreements. Adjustments may occur as the final development plans for the various Planned Develop- ments are approved by the City. This is expected to continue to be the pattern and the Comprehensive Plan should not be interpreted to mean that the City is going to undertake re- visions of these Planned Development Agreements. In any instance, the Eagan Comprehensive Guide Plan should be viewed as a guide as described herein and in other Sections of this Comprehensive Plan. It is expected to be utilized by the Planning Commission during the next decade as a guide in their deliberations with property owners and developers and in planning for municipal services to accomodate the pro- jected growth of the City. T& A Pl A n! rT eo Cho" ,w ,P 0 \ ? 9•,a� L Op` 4 • a n4, •P ' BY: GAeaeer DE°ELpaMENT• lac. n c+;" 0 2. a I 3 a 27 91 v � \ \ } o • 5 ~ `` 4 I 8 � 9 K t'\ 0.14 ' J v A 7 1 UEVN•F N, SCHW.9NC _J �S@ • \\ 9�e' IPNo S9e VEY0e9, Tat- gra • 1 f w x I L _.._ %5040 4ZI- i '•° o f u y/ ,°• Arooe r 423 Ilb9 J y \ y •025 v. . � '�-�— - - - � - - . �" �/e e\ 8 ^ ry Se>rene,Ee �2 e J \ a a 1 � w / ° I•y 6 i–f\ItK �0•'�. 23 Bums nw.' p.. n.o. a rrw.• w. r.w° s nm w' iv14 r ���• + LL °'rll: ID 22 21 20 19 18 I1 - lb Ir �r• au...W_N Wo., [),."I L'.vGvnllbN rl mu w., . 11.3r. k,." +) tlx.° 0e1 A.a i'0r. rrw 1) Imw w 1..5 • cio6 W. M lk J. . 3.ir5 oav J) e3: Aw, A,. 015 T. Onit wrn..0%cr.5ow 2%A{4a .rw T., All RuKcc 42 Lor5 � p., nr Vu Q.....- .1 Wm •A, 49 ougy lStU .i lr M.O. ilp•. N N I P(PrN ►.� ' BV. GAddeYr OEYS/aPmcNf, 7Nc Pd 4 Yy p w h 5� �; \ 3 • p ; Sole y,,..• ��, � w ' gaue .l0 f 9 T r,i i � ew•6 L j 1., 9.5 �Il plp: Ii LWe' I>,1beq 94o0e' , 9.ama pt4e i 11: I 15we om —1 a ro �5 , �. 1 ` F4'H ew 6%' (i• r / 5048 4- ZA I � o I ••. � Iw Re W][o: Sevrpagp tB,WBe J A n f•Ls p r h � ' p � e J 13 itoe w • I ✓ mei 101916.' Som q' eos' qme q' 'qmn' I ae_ tq``� • a Som e' 14 9boo• a B 9m•' a� �• 23 4 I 4weJ Som✓ = 76Wv 1 &be fP 22 2l 20 19 19 17 lb i�• 14 13 Aan 8w+.4ww. Iq Awa Dcgal*1 .Gawa+r..r. Q Tarn A✓r IIlL Ar4.a Q U✓na ha 1ua [.• m w. .3.475+•.^ B9 LOTS !) 16...a Fv..1 Wr• 1.90 !WI Y% LL...f 0.a Pw na T.. •. .) Maauy /•nu kra• O P+Y lw Fou .1 W. r ••j.127 aura 0 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Sixteen PRELIMINARY PLAT/LEXINGTON PLACE D. Extension of Time for Preliminary Plat of Lexington Place - The request for an extension of time for the preliminary plat of Lexington Place was continued from the last City Council meeting to the October 5 meeting. The City Council asked that a representa- tive from Orrin Thompson Homes be present to address the unsightly conditions caused by the storage and placement of construction trailers south of Cliff Road around the general intersection of Lenore Lane in the Ridgecliffe development. A representative of Orrin Thompson Homes will be present to address the issue with the City Council. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny an exten- sion of time for the preliminary plat of Lexington Place. REVISED SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE E. Consideration of a Subdivision Ordinance -- For the past two years, the City has been reviewing and working on a new subdivision ordinance that will: 1. Update the existing subdivision ordinance to provide better procedures for development on behalf of the City of Eagan and persons providing development within the community. 2. Satisfy regulations set forth by the land use planning act that required certain provisions to be incorporated into a city's subdivision ordinance. During the past several months, the City, under the direction of the City Planner, Dale Runkle, and with an extreme amount of assis- tance from our Administrative Intern Elizabeth Witt and Public Works Director Colbert, have met and coordinated a number of revi- sions for the new subdivision ordinance. Several meetings have been held with the Advisory Planning Commission, one of which was a joint meeting with the City Council. A number of meetings have been held with developers who have asked to provide input into the newly revised subdivision ordinance. The Advisory Planning Commission has approved the subdivision ordinance at its last regu- lar meeting and is recommending approval of the document as it is presented with this packet. The City Attorney's office has been present at most every review session and has worked closely with all revisions and is responsible for the coordination and drafting of the final revision which was adopted by the Advisory Planning Commission. To review a copy of the subdivision ordinance, refer to a copy which is enclosed without page numbers in your packet. The City Council has had input and has followed excerpts 12.3 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Seventeen of the subdivision review process and therefore might feel ready to act on the ordinance at this City Council meeting. However, if there are questions or additional information that is required, the ordinance could be continued until the October 19 meeting for a final consideration and adoption at that time. It would be well to consider adoption of this ordinance during the month of October so the subdivision ordinance can be included as a chapter of the ordinance codificaiton which will become effective during the month of December, 1982. The City Administrator asked the Administrative Intern to provide a summary of some of the more controversial items that were discussed during the subdivision review. For that infor- mation, refer to pages JZT through 1-L&_. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the sub- division ordinance as redrafted and recommended for approval by the Advisory Planning Commission. • •; TO: City Administrator Hedges FROM: Intern Witt DATE: September 30, 1982 SUBJECT: Subdivision Ordinance In order to implement the Comprehensive Plan, the City was directed to "adopt a new Subdivision Regulations Ordinance to replace an ordinance that was adopted several years ago." Staff commenced work on revision of the Subdivision Ordinance at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. By the Spring of this year the ordinance was ready for the closer scrutiny of Planning Commission members and interested developers. The Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance throughout the Summer months. In between those meetings Staff met with developers on four occasions to work out areas of concern. Much of the discussion involved clarification of language to make sure the intent was clearly understood. There were areas of concern which precipitated a great deal of contro- versy and these are outlined below: 1. page 18 (6) Timing of parkland dedication. The City wanted the option of requiring dedication of park land to be made before the final phase(s) of the subdivision is approved. (There is a possibility that a project will not be completed, leaving the city with an inadequate park site to be developed.) Developers state that they are purchasing land as they progress through the phasing and cannot afford dedication before the entire project is platted. Because the City has the choice of what land will be dedicated, it was recommended that dedication occur with phasing. The City has the option to buy any remaining land not formally deeded, but necessary for the park site to be developed as planned. 2. page 25 (12) Cul-de-sacs The City does not favor cul-de-sacs primarily because snow removal is more difficult and time consuming than on loop or other streets. However, cul-de-sacs are desirable from the developers' viewpoint and they prefer the City not regulate against them. The Planning Commission suggested the City adopt a neutral position in framing ordinance language re cul-de-sacs. 3. page 25 (9) and 29 (Subdivisions 12 $ 13.) Street Design Standards, Solar Access and Environmental Protection. These are areas which were removed from the ordinance and placed in a City Handbook. The developers felt that gas 0 0 Solar Access and Environmental Protection are still in a state of flux and should be excluded from stringent ordinance requirements at this time. The City did not want to suggest "minimum" street surface widths as too often "minimum" becomes "standard" and that is not the intent. Therefore, street right of way is shown in the ordinance and surface widths/other design standards will be addressed in the City Handbook. 4. page 32-33 (G. 1,2,3) Payment for Public Improvements. The issue causing most controversy is the percent of cash escrow, letter of credit or performance bond which must be paid before improvements can be installed. Currently, Eagan requires 0% on City - installed improvements and 125% on developer - installed improvements. Last year the figure was 20%. In these economic times there are more tax delinquencies and Eagan has had to foot the bill for an indefinite length of time for these del- inquencies- almost $1 million in 1982. The developers maintain that requiring such large amounts up front will wipe out all but the large developer. The Planning Commission directed staff to survey other communities to see if we could substantiate a case for one figure over another. Bursnville strongly encourages developer -installed improve- ments and requires a letter of credit for 125% of the total cost. Woodbury requires 20% and is not covered beyond the first year.. Through a developer's agreement, Bloomin& asks for 10% of the total cost in a letter of creditand, as each lot is sold, 125% of the cost is turned over to the City. Tom Colbert, in discussing"reasonable" figures, estimated that 60% of the total costs over a 5 - year bonding period would protect the City suf- ficiently. He was agreeable to an eventual reduction in the financial guarantee to 20% of the original cost. Tom felt there could be periodic reductions from the 60% to the 20% but that these would be decided on a case-by- case basis. (APC Chairman Hall directed staff to come up with an incremental reduction with the figures written into the ordinance but Tom felt more comfortable with "periodic reductions." izb 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Eighteen MILL RATE/PAYABLE 1983 0 F. Establish Mill Rate Certification Payable 1983 -- The Director of Finance and City Administrator have prepared the final tax levy as recommended for 1983 which totals $2,967,861. A copy of the breakdown of proposed special levies and consideration of the general fund and major street fund is enclosed on page / a $ . The special levies, including debt service levies and generaT pro- perty tax levy, create a net mill rate reduction of .467 or approxi- mately � mill payable in 1983. This is based on an estimated as- sessed valuation figure of $163,817,806 and a fiscal disparities distribution of $150,000. This proposed mill rate is the amount that was presented to the City Council at the last special budget meeting held on September 30, 1982. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the general property tax levy payable 1983 as presented and authorize the City Clerk to certify the same with the Dakota County Auditor upon its approval. 12. �7 0 Liability Insurance Proposed Special Levies Matching Funds Programs LOGIS - 1983 Community Health Services Bonded Indebtedness 1972 Park & Fire 1973 Park 1979 Fire Station 1982 Municipal Expansion Equipment Certificates 1981-1 Certificates 1981-2 Certificates Sub -Total Sub -Total Sub -Total Sub -Total Increased Industrial/Commercial Development Sub -Total Property Tax Abatements Sub -Total Unfunded Accrued Liability of Public Pension Funds PERA Volunteer Firefighters' Relief Assn. Sub -Total Shade Tree Disease Control Sub -Total GRAND TOTAL DEBT SERVICE GENERAL FUND TOTAL Proposed General Lev GENERAL FUND MAJOR STREET FUND TOTAL GRAND TOTAL TAX LEVY $ 35,902 $ 48,290 26,400 $ 73,800 36,300 49,500 62,100 $ 39,500 45,600 $167,055 $ 18,375 $ 12,633 106,386 $ 54,154 $ 35,902 74,690 221,700 85,100 167,055 18,375 119,019 54,154 $ 775,995 $ 306,800 469,195 $ 775,995 $2,021,987 169,879 $2,191,866 $2,967,861 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Nineteen NEW: BUSINESS PEACE REFORMED CHURCH 0 A. Peach Reformed Church, Building Addition/Site Plan on Nicols Road -- The pastor of Peace Reformed Church has approached the City Planner regarding a plan to expand the present church facility located on Nicols Road by adding a general meeting room and an area which can be used for activities related to the church. Due to the lack of public facilities zoning for the existing church and the fact that they have purchased property across the street for a new church facility, the City Planner and City Administrator felt that there should be some direction given to the staff and representatives of the church as to how the question of expanding the existing church should be handled. For additional information on this item, refer to the City Planner's memorandum and drawings found on pages 0 through 133 . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To provide direction to the City staff and representatives of Peace Reformed Church as to what applications and procedures should be followed regarding their expansion plans. 1a9 C TO: • I` 17DGE CITY ADMINISTRAT. ••• DALE M3NKLE, CITY PLANNER DATE: 11 30, EXPANSION CF PEACE M RU-ORMED CHURCH 0 Staff has been contacted by the Pastor of Peace Reformed Church in regard to expanding the present church facility to add on a general meeting roan and an area which can be used for activities related to the church. As you may recall, Peace Reformed Church has purchased the area on the west side of Nicols Road for a new church facility. However, it is staff's un- derstanding that the church wishes to add on to their present facility in- stead of building a new church on the land on the west side of Nicols Road. It is more economical for the Church to make an addition instead of breaking ground for a whole new facility. The request from the Pastor is in regard to would the City allow an addition to be constructed at the present site. In reviewing the zoning of the parcel, the Church property contains Lots 12-16 and Lots 20-24, Block 6, Cedar Grove No. 4. The zoning of the pro- perty is presently R-1, Residential Single District, and would not allow a church facility. Therefore, staff cannot allow any additions or permits for this new construction. Before the Church prepares detailed plans for this addition, the Church is requesting that the City Council review the issue and possibly make a recommendation as to whether they would or would not allow an addition to the Church. Staff is suggesting that if the Council elects to allow the Church to build an addition to the present structure, that the Church submit an application and rezone the property from R-1, Residential Single District, to P, Public Facilities District, which would then zone the property in accordance with the present use. Once the property is zoned properly, the Church would then be able to obtain a building permit through staff if all of the ordinance requirements are met. If ordinance requirements are not met, then the Church would then have to apply for the proper variances in order to obtain a build- ing permit. It is too early for staff to know if the Church will be able to meet all the ordinances at this time and staff would then perform the detail- ed review when the site plan has been submitted for the building permit re- quest. If the City Council would give• an indicati allow the addition to the Church, the Church ceed with the detailed plans for the addition 130 1M I co whether they would or would not would then know whether to pro- , or other possible alternatives. _.�__- -I �•' � �_-_ meq-.. _y,- I y � IT - I .kr.!% � ..: ^�' p 8 �'✓off, /l . /' a II V I I I I I I 11 I „ I I I ' zz. 1 - e . 99 r [b 'a, � �I � r _' � ^ I I � I i � i i Y I I I 1 ' I v 1 �.. I � r � \ . •1 � � � IT 4 t l'1 �� e � ''Y'I.,.:I I,�:1 'J `I'`I•..I '��I _'�'1 L�aS - S I r.� - � . I 9 I _ 1 r k. ) Y - �I II1 �1. I I �...rti F.� J ��y i�SI ]• 4\Art��+ftjv7�ir, d'r� {�`I '7.'S rl lye,., ,Y X1-1 , �� li . �. I �- {ir I e- R' • 14w r i " T L fi� o f Yi r- -� u 14 „j, {, ''{��,,..``•'� 1L' �a•r`' i, S'�'%'Ss'•tnY1A y�. SSBI �' I �n I y� [ i. ...:] .P7i%S-r.. f li:'� 'Sd IS^yf-'S?'it[>41=tYe� • �{�. t''y'T�b\Vp .�.. �i ✓itR�Pi..w.7:o,i A ''rNN ..'fYi y. - ..;e.-- 0 0 'PAN ILI, : or -,vu-f -J-3 :;3 r _ 18� 17 16 0 15 0� 14 -� i6 I7g.......L ..0 1354 j 75 1 75 I ! 4'8°30- °• ��Os. 1 91 65 .. T-20 EAST o 75 75 85 =' a- 165 : 1000 4r; A0 3 Y" - -- --- _ - 313.35- .-.. ---- - 1 395 0-- O -�o v Q `- 81B EAST - - 395 0-- J 8 00 43 d3d5 75 5 g(c'9 +: 2qo °r:t .. C -. 3c `.. d91f A-i°'09:x.. 2�7°0-' 2 a' O r. ' 75 -30 30 '614 'g2V 9S ti 42 o o G N 17 1 N 18 IN 19 O CI 31ir1 J. 17 N N - 20 0 ir,;//yam �s N1 21 h .�� S ga - 7 . 23.08 i- 120 .-.... EAST -___ -311 n 9374 57 ti0 v ^ 16 20 s H ^ N W Iso 23 Q I^ 19 O �!m Ts 24 M 15 21 z �1-` 18 o N . C ^ z w�`ti 2 N I __ __ da6.. 17 _ 28.3] ��3 G:r2o�, 122.12 -__ _ I "3760 0 1 EAST_ G_28° 3 ^ 14 22 r C5 -- `1 H:3p08r ay�2a0., 16 �• Z ^ ' '' 311 O 121.G3 ---a '4.12 so'15' � 7j r �� �S IS 0-66 ^ 13 tV 23 n i 01l,N _ 15 :�; 16 LLL 0 C 2 ^ 12 24 "'1� es:sa �s I7 SRr� h ' 7s 120.67 „ 'p r9i JS _ F n is 19 m 14 �o - ^ I I 25 Z v 13 >s 19 120.19 4 _ 35 3a5;q• ,1;yo3 11 w ^ 10 : b C 20 M sgsj'ra.. 12 7 Q Z 26 ^ �E uST� `�-28°�-200� r.> Ns2Oa- � Q 11971 3 6.. 35 y_ ,`•'] :N ^ Ip 30 .30 4=28c341 10 o4i 9 - 27 n n 5 58 C �g2o✓ >c rt¢`0 - Q c Z ^ "' 2 3 `"I r0' a� AiOc a3 �S 9 j 119.22LLJ ^ 8^ EAST a S '• I f 28 ^ 20 2 4 W �� so o' j LLQ —___ I ry P o/ ` ry 118 74 -.. 22 ^ P 25 to ^ 7 7 Tgs Z3'rs•W ' O �: � �� 118.2621x a $ 33 5 03'32.. s1 O T wow 63n - - - 26 • 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Twenty BLACKHAWK OAKS PRELIMINARY PLAT & REZONING B. Paul R. Larson for Rezoning from A to PD to Allow a Townhouse and Single Family Development and Preliminary Plat for Blackhawk Oaks, Consisting of Townhouse and Single Family Lots -- A public hearing was first held regarding the Blackhawk Oaks rezoning and preliminary plat on July 27, 1982. The recommendation to the City Council by the APC was to deny the rezoning and preliminary plat as the result of that Advisory Planning Commission meeting. The City Council considered this item at their August 17, 1982 meeting and requested that the developer review the possibilities of de- veloping the parcel as single family vs. townhouse and single family combination. The applicant prepared some revisions, one of which is a total single family development, and presented the same at a new public hearing held by the Advisory Planning Commission at their meeting on September 28, 1982. The Advisory Planning Commis- sion is recommending approving of the rezoning and the preliminary plat which now consists of 12 townhouse dwelling units and 10 single family lots. For additional information on the City Planner's report and revised plans, refer to pages 135' through 7 . For a copy of the APC action, refer to pages through JAIL ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the recom- mendation of the APC to approve the rezoning and revised preliminary plat of Blackhawk Oaks. 3`fi C, E TO: CHARLES HALL, C[LAIRMAN AND THE ADVISORY PLANNING CCP1MIS.SION FROM: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 1982 RE: UPDATE ON THE BT.ACKHAWK OAKS REZONING AND PREf.IMINARY PLAT As you may recall, the Advisory Planning Camnission held its first public hear- ing on Blackhawk Oaks rezoning and preliminary plat on July 27, 1982. At this meeting, there was a great deal of input frau the surrounding neighborhood in regard to the townhouse portion of the preliminary plat road access and access to Blackhawk Park. After a great deal of discussion by the Advisory Planning Commission, the Comnission reoamoended to deny the rezoning and preliminary plat on a 4-3 vote. This recamiendation then carried to the City Council for their review. Prior to the City Council meeting, the applicant met with the Park Camlittee to discuss the issue in regard to access to Blackhawk Park. After an onsite inspection of the property, the Park Committee requested that a right-of-way be dedicated across Lots 7, 8 and 9 in order to provide a possible future road right-of-way and access to Bladdk&k Park.. With the recomendations of the Planning Couumi.ssion and Park Committee, the applicant prepared four additional sketches trying to address the concerns of the Advisory Planning Commission and Park Counnittee and presented these four sketches at the August 17, 1982 Council meeting. The City Council reviewed the original preliminary plat which was submitted in the July 21, 1982 staff report along with the four alternative sketches. The City Council reviewed the sketches and indicated that even though the density of the development was low, the neighborhood opposed the townhouse development and suggested that the developer review the possibilities of developing this parcel as single family vs. the townhouse and single family combination. Not taking any action on the plat, the City Council directed the applicant to go back to the Planning Canis- sion with a revised plan taking their cam ants into consideration. With the direction of the City Council, staff has scheduled another public hear- ing for September 28th for Blackhawk Oaks preliminary plat and rezoning to a planned development. In working with the applicant, it is staff's understand- ing that in light of the eannents and direction of the City Council, the appli- cant still wishes to pursue the original plan which consists of 16 townhouse units and 9 single family lots as their first choice to develop the property. Therefore, staff has enclosed a copy of the staff report dated July 21, 1982 for your review. The applicant has submitted an alternative plan which is enclosed with this manorandum. The alternative plan contains 10 single family lots and 12 townhouse units for a total of 25 dwelling units or a net reduction of 3 dwelling units frau the original plan. 135 0 • SMEMBER 22, 1982 PAGE TM The preliminary plat still contains 12.7 acres of which 8 acres would be single family development, 3.4 acres of townhouse development and 1.3 acres of right- of-way for the connection of Riverton or Silver Bell Road. The gross density on the revised plan is 1.73 dwelling units per acre and 1.93 dwelling units per net acre deducting the road right-of-way. The net density change between the two development proposals is .47 dwelling less on the revised plan as compared to the original plan of July 27, 1982. The difference between the original plan and the revised plan is the applicant is proposing to increase the single family units by one lot and decrease the townhouse development by 4 units. Therefore, a net decrease of 3 dwelling units is being proposed. The other change in the alternate plan is that the developer has shifted the townhouse units as far away from the existing single family resi- dence to the south. Presently, the applicant is proposing that no townhouse unit would be within 240' of the southerly lot line. Therefore, hopefully this will provide as much of a buffer area as possible but still trying to obtain the townhouse concept in their overall development proposal. The last item staff would like to address regarding this alternative proposal is that the developer is not proposing to dedicate a public street or rights-of-way for a public street along Lots 7, 8 and 9. It is their conclusion that they have provided adequate access to the lots mentioned above and that they feel there is no need for an additional right-of-way for a public street. The developer has indicated that they will provide a trail easement along Lots 7, 8 and 9 to pro- vide pedestrian access or bicycle access to Blackhawk Park. They feel strongly in not dedicating rights-of-way for a public street. This issue between the Park Committee request and the developer's request will be addressed at the City Coun- cil level. The applicant has prepared a third exhibit which is more'in the direction of which the City Council recommended at the August 17, 1982 Council meeting. This pro- posal consists of 21 single family lots and the loop connection of Riverton Avenue to Blackhawk Road. There are 3 single family lots which could be further subdivid- ed creating wts 22, 23 and 24 which could be further subdivided when the street north of this property is developed. At the present time, the developer is show- ing a half right-of-way for the street providing access to Blackhawk Park. It is staff's understanding that if this third alternate is the plan that is approved by the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council, the applicant or developer would not continue with the development process and just withdraw his application for the development request. If the original plan which was submitted in July is approved, or if Alternate A is approved, the conditions listed in the July 21, 1982 staff report should apply to the original plan or Alternate A. Sincerely, Dale C. Runkle City Planner DCR/jack )3 66 Fm -7- TZM PLATAIWA . .. lf.T A, 'SN" II AaA I6.0 Ac '.' fALILTIIL9 ARG •i AL, fl1ALIC KOW. I•a A,, I LOAN Acm WA 11ru mAr/ I II•'s -LVAn�A[Af 4w Ra W. ILL MLvb OW K Y}aWIW Wit O I 4p LSI Lar O �r II �r l Lor W ' OLYK4AWIt • FlA/I Am II DLK4IAWK PIC{ aarnu AmrttlV / S, Y5. LR 9' LST d I' ler 6 Law. Paatll1lnY• M A w ua w n walk S.. IA4V, .ML PKELIMIN4KY MAT 6LAGK1IAWK OAKS ADDITION Lor 7 ll Y mwK IAAK ' ler L aLGy GCLLC M1bJWrt4/ F htw all wl l 60=3 c .hp. . RIS J W Oo l O TON C AltA me { T"Q F.SMWK RCQYIROG 1. 69W.L'Q.W41T' TTM D[ OrMaNT L s. to .MWK. 64 Eaq RS N."", O GWLDI 4- M." I.1 T1M• nId d Dava LOA1YNI T...I P..I F,q ew.0 w wv SK•TW r6AM EA 9 • CITY OF EAGAN APPLICANT: PAUL LARSCN LOCATION: PART OF THE N'k OF THE NVx OF ME NE;, SECTION 20 EXISTING ZONING: A (AGRICULTURAL) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: JULY 27, 1982/JULY 29, 1982 DATE OF REPORT: JULY 21, 1982 DALE C. KZME, CITY PLAM ER The first application submitted is a request to rezone approximately 13 acres from A (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development District) to allay 16 townhouse units and 9 single family lots in part of the A of the M. of the NE3d, Section 20. ane second application submitted is a request for preliminary plat approval - Blackhawk Oaks, which would contain approximately 13 acres and consist of 16 town- house lots and 9 single family lots located in the N31 of the NE; of the NEk, Section 20. ZONING AND LAND USE Presently, the parcel is zoned A (Agricultural) and would only allay one dwelling unit per 5 acres. The Comprehensive Land Use Guide designates this parcel as R-1 (Residential Single District) with a density of 0 - 3 dwelling units per acre. Tb:e proposed develogurent plan has a net density of 2.39 dwelling units per acre, which is within the R-1 density range, even though the development plan is not all single family dwelling units. In reviewing this development plan, the area to the south is developed as single family lots. Riverton Drive has been stubbed to the property in the southeast corner to provide access to this particular parcel. ane area to the north is still relatively undeveloped. Blackhawk Park abuts the parcel on the east and Bladchawk Road borders the property on the west. She applicant has proposed to continue Riverton Drive as a curvilineal street, which would terminate at and make a four-way intersection at Blackhark Road and Silverbell Road. The proposed street plan provides good public access for this particular parcel and allows additional access for the people in the Cedar Grove area to the south. The applicant is also proposing to provide a private drive which would be a loop street tying in from Blackhawk Road to the extension of Silverbell Road or Riverton Drive. This private drive would have two accesses and provide good traffic circulation for the sixteen taunhouse units. It is Staff's understanding that the private drive will be a J39 9 • CITY OF EAGM PAUL IARSCN JULY 27, 1982 PAGE TWO minimum of 24 feet wide and there is a rulz union of a 20 foot setback for this private drive. The townhouse portion contains 3.96 acres of which .36 acres is contained with the private drive. The net acres for the multiple is 3.6 and would have a'density of 4.4 dwelling units per acre. The lot coverage in the townhouse portion is 11.3%. The single family lots will contain approximately 7.64 acres and will contain 9 lots. The smallest lot within the single family area is 18,700 square feet, which is well in excess of the minimum lot size for an R-1 (Residential Single District). Presently, there is an existing house on the 13 acre parcel. This house will be platted as Lot 1, within the single family district. The greatest concern on the development proposal is in regard to providing adeauate easertents for the extension of Riverton Drive or Silverbell Road on the north portion of the plat. It is Staff's understanding that the applicant will have to work with the adjoining party owner to be able to provide adequate road right-of-way to provide access to this development proposal. If this right-of-way cannot be obtained, the developer will have to redesign the plat which would have to shift the road southerly to have the sixty foot right-of-way within the parcel under consideration at this time. If approved, the preliminary plat should be subject to the following conditions: 1. That a planned develcPment agreement and development agrement be executed prior to the final plat approval of Blackhawk Oaks. 2. A homeowner's association and by-laws shall be reviewed by City Staff prior to final plat approval. 3. A landscape plan shall be submitted and reviewed for the townhouse portion of Blackhawk Oaks and an adequate landscape bond shall be provided and not released until one ,year after the landscaping has been conpleted. 4. Adequate right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City with the final plat in order to provide a sixty foot right-of-way for the extension of Riverton Drive or Silverbell Road extension. 5. No more than 16 townhouse units and 9 single family lots shall be allowed for this development proposal. 6. The plat shall be subject to the park dedication fees as requested by the Advisory Park committee. 7. All easements shall be dedicated as requested by City Staff. DCR/bar ENGINEERING MCCNMENIDATIONS B. Internal storm sewer lateral facilities will have to be extended to its ultimate outlet into Blackhawk Lake. 9. Internal private drive shall be a minimum 24 feet in width with concrete curb and cutter. 10. All required public rights-of-way, including the extension of Silverbell Road, rust be aomdred and dedicated as a part of the final plat or prior to the installation of streets and utilities. 11. A 40 foot half right-of-wav should be dedicated for Bladkhacak Road as a _Dart of the final plat. 140 9 0 MEMO TO: ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION, C/O DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER FROM: RICHARD M. HEFT1, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BLACKIIAWK OAKS ADDITION The Public Works Department has the following comments to offer for the consideration of the above referenced plat: UTILITIES Sanitary Sewer of sufficient size, capacity and depth to handle this proposed development exists both to the west on Silver Bell Road and to the south on Riverton Avenue. The existing sanitary sewer on Silver Bell Road would have to be extended approximately 185 feet east to the west boundary of this proposed plat. This would involve crossing Blackhawk Road. Water main of sufficient pressure and capacity to handle this proposed development exists both in the northwest corner of this proposed plat at Blackhawk Road and on the southeast corner of this proposed plat on River- ton Avenue. Consequently, no extension of either trunk or lateral water main will be required to serve this proposed development. Internal lateral distribution of sanitary sewer and water main will then have to be installed, according to City standards, to provide individual service to the proposed development. GRADING/DRAINAGE The general topography in this parcel consists of hills and depressions with the general drainage being overland towards the north and Blackhawk Lake. Approximately ninety (90) feet of fall exists from the northern edge of this parcel to Blackhawk Lake. The preliminary grading plan calls for draining a low point along the northern boundary of this parcel to ponding area located between Lots 1 and 2. This ponding area would appear to be constructed in existing low area. From this ponding area, the overflow would pass under the road through a culvert and outlet in the northwest corner of Lot 9. From here, it would have to flow overland across Lot 8 and north until it reaches Blackhawk Lake. As can be seen by the attached subdistrict storm sewer drainage map, the entire parcel isointended to drain north to Blackhawk Lake. Consequently, this drainage should have little, if any, effect upon Blackhawk Lake, especially since it has a positive storm sewer outlet as constructed under Project 297. My concern arises from the pond overflow being discharged on Lot 9 and flowing across Lot S. The pond overflow should be directed from this proposed development via storm sewer. All storm sewer con- struction can be accomplished without any additional trunk or Lateral lines. /+t 0 0 Blackhawk Oaks Addition Engineering Report Page Two EASEMENTS & RIGHT OF WAY A sixty (60) foot right of way would have to be dedicated for a portion of the street located within the boundaries of the preliminary plat. It should be noted that a portion of the proposed street lies outside of the preliminary plat. This portion of the developer, either street right of way should be acquired by the by means of purchase or easement. This should be prior to the submission of the final plat. A ponding easement would have to be dedicated for the proposed internal ponding area located between Lot 1 and Lot 2. In addition, all necessary internal utility easements required for the internal utility distribution would be compulsory at the time of the final plat. STREETS Access to this proposed development would be Blackhawk Road along the west and from Riverton Avenue on the south. ,p4 Private drives in Blackhawk Oaks Second Addition shall be a minimum of g feet wide with concrete curb and gutter. Furthermore, the dead end private drive should be looped back into Riverton Avenue, maintaining a 75 foot setback from Blackhawk Road. Should the developer wish to dedicate these streets, they must be increased to the standard 60 foot requirements for public right of way. ASSESSMENTS All costs associated with providing internal streets and utilities to service this development would be the responsibility of this development and the adjacent property to the north based on proportionate frontageand benefit received. TRAILS & SIDEWALKS Since Riverton Avenue will not be a collector road, no trails or sidewalks will be required. In addition, no sidewalk will be required along Black - hawk Road for the reason that sidewalk is in place along the west side of Blackhawk Road. I will be available to discuss any aspect of this report with the Planning Commission at their meeting on July 27, 1932, Respectfully submitted, Richard M. Hefti, P.E. Assistant City Engineer '1010 D j• Z' ld1LL.V�,1=PIe�si l . �Oa]' --• .A 21 ' - — + _�� /l/PIi71I Ij l) I/d:/ II ./ �_ ~� 1 r .o\� .� •. \/1��I L/- •._-':•j\—HT1 I.1 IJ—� ' /i,' ; 0-INS E•,T_� E B `��T e�. ,..,, ....•:. a-] - YC/1AD19 • : N� J F / __�` I �L \y J/ i I I u.�W!.�.'J•�D-'� • •' :/ I. _ _ (((/��� • 7 _ _ _... e .-_. � c-1a �p; � 0 1] I•I:I11 1 7 _ ✓ ' Gam; 1_ / .I`^r 1 •. .24% ;'/I .I�;{�J \ I I 0.21 L \+�,I 0.2A .•�:�..To� E'B �E19 - -..;.a J� 1�-17 + '1 - •� ••�F / 0' r xl 1 �. C_1BY�. C q D...P-..• / E'I! I E•.4 11 V ' - 1 //. _ - I :/�•�r \ B� -IO.B _ Irl 1 .,• /-Z •" j 4. nX-�/�, �K/J . -3;yn �j�� � yy}l `/I.t'�[�/r-ij �J9D! �' �.,9-7 �I1//\• �li \ \r.jls• iQ`-127 f :,Io>1 JI� �/'•' �I.''�1. JpIl,l/h/��./ ��-B`!•� I ` 1 `I;I y—( 5'1}41R1!21 1!)9f1]340 v 0-1rJ, I 0i.�2]�\7/1J10-�2133� J I4E`).L- ,=Et-.•1. 16 \20.28- ❑ 10-- .h/I3] �Q 4WI ,i1 —SI J-2' % 1/ —�ell I : -e' 11 5- A-55 °-sB _ 1r L_._\-.� � 1r. \ t F' 39 it 7 /A-10/ J-22 ( +;a�'r ° I l 6�..4L - 11 W rn 'tae — i+ 10� N ' - ( J•8 -8 1 \ G-1. 1 n-13 'tY '3 tlr' ull JF _y :: r\-- I J-2] 1 7 '// // /fl JM 4:R I +I 1J �\ f 1 J•Is' / (I J-34 \ LS ®R l+/F�.BIJi I:: `'' \ '62 ; + J-21 -/ N 1% �— I J-]r a Is n Lel, I 7 . %/ -• ' C,. S!s /1 a \4,L-12ljI L t / i -'\ J-S J 7 I - V 1 /� J.]! .Ir+.'1 ,[, a y\' IJI/Ifirl �/�+1 -1. �I` I e'i` Ii -C F 1 2at i( c J-362t� 1� II a .it 114 C1y�°�i1 �l .%.� jJ 1{] r B(�r - ` _ I.1.4.(11: y �l_� _ 1 _ i r F� I /T \ /I 1 1'.',� ` I "�.. Ai•lJ1JJ-•�( r r ) (, \ \f• f ] 1 :��qJ-671 I/ I IL� \_ I-_� ,/ �� l I // !S •/ B B i1 _ ✓ti;, T'+] 1 �f/lL\ °-i! �.4� �/JLv/JBI` 4�L' ' SII J A- J..r .., ? /j/l�p/ClSriB-]J✓�B] -2S/I ;l/B'�Bi ,:lII lli! J�I1J 9`p1p1 �•� +III.,4 I 11 I I' fdqI u L-7 k 11 ( J-3J2.'`+Jo ,) �) �J I Yr -II++(/A 11 J g.r J +s1 L�7fFI - .,73/J )r�J:.a10 ' la\ // ( Blb l +!.s. 1 �"�-I `�.yL� \ •� J I •• h r t Ibc�1b L-13 _ 6-2s fj}-7 r-.. ]z inti YI. 71,III� 111, J n�l 1 r� A 67 A4B 1/i' \ - Il _ L•21 L-21 rr 1i... \Il ]�)/A.]A rg 27. '7' �_1. -'7�.5ry. y 1... / -,I ` L•I -Y ` �fli .0 + 1 I 1 L'SN L•123 IL-p�(\\\} J e. -i / �Y I .t✓. IIZJ �k 1 I . , u. - al�{u�:\ I , Il'II �., r �l al n-BA _'.Zl+.i."' I (+l'`�/1y�� 4 I L•:3� sJ.rF:�•. /^_v ]rl iaj - 1 a+�� ��.1�j;{l, •�' r /,j � �9 L�Z1`J; L �L.31 l : YJ . ,. 4,,. J '_NJ1u! Il �. 1 _ IL; 1 L_ ' nra:.12'�t�B- ���� {' 1. � II•I II I .•.� I,:..Y .... � /./i 1 / I aACr,AA K OAKS AVD W TOTAL RAT AW M.Af k �NtN LW LT AKM UN k W1i1/li ARA }ft♦. _..lbeut 1A111r s WAY L41 A. "IINm /dLRi TaF TAN1- "T. I.ff ' r WM/AGC Lift R'LW !.M PRELIMINARY PLAT llAr ww mw N .LY4. VL glrINM• N 1 M} 4 Nt. A wA4, NNiYY DLACXWAWK OAKS ADDITION 4[v M LYW MYrY far fMLN11L YW. • 0 IL1We4F VYpSc.IL N4TGWNNi4f IbKTbY TRY.. Rp .IMIJ...ru. R1W.. 4wW ea.MU Mwru •rt..� O.tuY YNM.u. urs- wr / '•• R Sv M O !{Y KIMWK . V bf Y .1e IteY -IL 4.T.. r l . WAY W Y.• w.Y W.- � � i YYL I•b' Ny:Y/ FKCLIWN4Rr LJTILIr1E5 LAfUllr .. . CLACk14AWk oaks ADDITION O, T ,.. . .K. Y. O.Y..e.Y. G•,. ' I A3ll7n 3lddv � E. N- L—IM-2. -- +d r A qr.4• , d ra n I a - li•.s'� ♦� '•I4 ^.-• V HN /jU211 - to - '• � Iha ;. a a � Ira t I J 0.4 ..; meb pal �. D y Ira y v vi mil Na; 0Td pu 00 _ UU i ;••' 2i• .! hti. 11 1 Si\\ `l100Y3V; ;J 0 APC Minutes September 28, 1982 0 BLACKHAWK OAKS - REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT The public hearing regarding the application of Paul Larson for rezoning of approximatley 13 acres from A (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development) to allow 16 townhouse units and 9 single family lots, and preliminary plat approval of Blackhawk Oaks Addition was convened by the Planning Commission. Mr. Larson was present as was Larry Frank, Planner, on his behalf. Mr. Runkle explained the position of the Council which returned the application to the Advisory Planning Commission to allow the applicant to explore other alter- nates in light of the objections from single family property owners adjacent to the property. Three plans were presented to the Council. Mr. Frank re- viewed the objections and each of the three proposals including the original proposal submitted to the City. The Park Committee has recommended access be provided directly east of Silver Bell Road to Blackhawk Park along the north line of the property and Mr. Frank indicated that the developers opposed the suggestion because there is an existing access to the Park further south. Peter Stalland appeared on behalf of his father, who is the owner of approxi- mately 3 acres to the northeast and recommended the park access along the north line .be required because the Stalland parcel is basically landlocked except for a private easement across Cy Barry's property. Mr. Barry allegedly has agreed with the half right-of-way on the Barry property, according to Mr. Frank. A number of property owners were present objecting to the proposal except for single family homes. Mr. Frank reviewed the proposal with 12 townhouses located generally on the northwest area of the property, and one single family lot at the southwest corner, which the applicant is willing to submit for approval by the City. Mr. Frank indicated that the intention is to have low profile earth sheltered type homes on the property and therefore, it should not be objectionable to the single family owners to the south. There was discussion concerning the method of assessing for the Park road improve- ments on the north line, and it was noted it must be done on the basis of benefit only. Mr. Krob favored the new plan with the 12 townhouses and was concerned about the engineering feasibility of the access road because of terrain features along the north line. It was suggested, however, that the City require dedication of an easement along the north line in the event that it is not used, it would be vacated at a future time. Generally, the Planning Commission members favored the new proposal, including the 12 town homes. However, member Wilkins favored the single family use of the property. McCrea moved, Krob seconded the motion to recommend approval of the rezoning applica- tion from A (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development) with underlying Agri- cultural zoning, and for preliminary plat approval of the proposal, including the 12 townhouse units at the northwest area of the property, subject to the following conditions. 1. That a planned development agreement and development agreement be executed prior to the final plat approval of Blackhawk Oaks. 2. Homeowner's association declarations and by-laws shall be reviewed by city staff prior to final plat approval. 3 /+% 0 0 APC Minutes September 28, 1982 3. A landscape plan shall be submitted and reviewed for the townhouse portion of Blackhawk Oaks and an adequate landscape bond shall' be provided and not released until one year after the landscaping has been completed. 4. Adequate right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City with the final plat in order to provide a sixty foot right-of-way for the extension of Riverton Drive or Silver Bell Road extension. 5. No more than 12 townhouse units and 10 single family lots shall be allowed for this development proposal. 6. The plat shall be subject to the park dedication fees as requested by the Advisory Park Committee and that bike trail be dedicated at minimum of 25 feet as requested by the City along the North line. 7. All easements shall be dedicated as requested by City Staff. 8. Internal storm sewer lateral facilities will havae to be extended to its ultimate outlet into Blackhawk Lake. 9. Internal private drive shall be a minimum 24 feet in width with concrete curb and gutter. 10. A 40 foot half right-of-way should be dedicated for Blackhawk Road as a part of the final plat. All voted in favor except Wilkins who voted no. CLARKSON PLACE - PRELIMINARY PLAT The hearing regarding the application of Elmer L. and Dorothy A. Scott for preliminary plat approval of Clarkson Place consisting of 3.88 acres with two commercial lots was considered by the Planning Commission. Dorothy Scott was present and there were no objectors to the proposal. She stated that there would be no repair work, but the property would be used only for storage. After discussion, Wilkins moved, Rrob seconded the motion to recom- mend approval of the application, subject to the following. 1. An easement be granted to Lot 1 from the southerly access on Lot 2 to provide access. 2. If Lot 1 is sold for the storage of refuse trucks and a building is constructed for this storage, no other construction or development shall be allowed on these lots until such time that utilities are provided to the site. 3. The access to Lot 2 shall be graded and a slope approved by the City Engineer and the disturbed area should be seeded in order to prevent soil erosion. 4 /+y 0 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Twenty -One BRITTANY FOURTH ADDITION FINAL PLAT C. Final Plat Consideration for Brittany Fourth Addition (William Nolan)/Replat of Outlot A, Brittany 1st Addition -- On August 18, 1982, the City Council formally approved the preliminary plat for the proposed Brittany Fourth Addition. All conditions placed on that preliminary plat have been complied with. If Project #364 for the installation of trunk water main is previously approved on the October 5 agenda, this final plat would be in order for consideration and approval by the Council. A copy of the final plat is enclosed on page 1S1 . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the final plat application for Brittany Fourth Addition (William R. Dolan) and, if appropriate, authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. /J O BRITTANY 4TH ADDITION r, r, • I� Y • 0 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Twenty -Two OAKWOOD HEIGHTS FINAL PLAT D. Final Plat Consideration for Oakwood Heights (Countryside Builders, Inc.) -- That part of the NW4 of the SE -1-4 of Section 26 lying north of Wilderness Run Road and east of the Wedgwood Addition -- On May 4, 1982, the City Council formally approved the preli- minary plat for the proposed Oakwood Heights Addition. A copy of this proposed final plat is included on page 1,y73 for the Coun- cil's information. All conditions placed on the preliminary plat have been complied with and the final plat is now in order for consideration for final approval by Council action. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the final plat for Oakwood Heights as presented by Countryside Builders, Inc., and, if appropriate, authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. ,s a N OAKWOOD e axon[ .al Y4wxr ur • rcwne 1N11Iww[xr roan T., I,It "K Ill wuu, yI., B1 a Ip YNIJ»IL A, III °L,RIpn [Wt» YYL m L \� ii1lN s v1Ylli.1 Mp P yI L CIM p t4NYA AIA ZI {N HEIGHTS I,WIIOIIWKi.NIilWll[.{V Lrn,11Ii111M!4I1.4Y�[.14 [911.01,1, IN[.r I .1. M. 4rWr°IYr b✓al IIWII•lor rY HILI II«Yl YIIMf ML I•Y • .. MII.°, MYIII[ IMpr11111e11M II M WrnlY °! W4u M. N NIIiw,.0Y1••pIAN. I1:.11If111N1 1 »IWIel14ur111111urulY. ar•MY.r ar Ir• IMI Mn °( IM 1°IM NI( II IM 1wIN111 DYrYr II W IIW M, IYMII }I, Mn1 ll. Irlou fan°r. XlnauY Wr11Y• w Iu11�1 W iINNpIW rutllll/4•aurw� rm IwIN w OYIAO M1411f •N tl Will WI°I IM Wlwm lu 1Y F°Ila. le/ KIII YI le rw°r °Y I—'. . Ipfn 1 11 rnylT °»1° 1111. ,Y MIMr' rural wli LMI}1!101nb_i_! WIIpN. IM.11 el°nY°II [wW n. N° .. IbM Waunw Y p "'IAe/ 111 I. ......... ° I M MII ° M M1mnli tllbN I_b1 °I_.._ . Il9Mw I° MW°° nWn°I °NI IIMII I141M1 91111.1 Ylu IIY I5541NIN N IYIII.[^, • Ynl.. llwY IT Mrl.. [°rpn°Iln. »N wv°Ii NrY Hrunw I. w \1991 LI 11111191 °11111111M 111 [I/Y11.. °III lu 9 l f—al. l II _ Ir101—_ ,n NIY°° wrYl 1111 IM."TOI 1W111 '$14111M. ° Atm." trnewl lnlnMYY. I°° .VIN 1YY IrYWI l° Y "I" W illlAm 11 9. °u9 [°IW.IIMI M.—, YI JUM 1. [YIN. IYr Yeu° Ilrl°.... _bY el.... ... , 1 A ____• 1.1111111..NI.... IIS. !ILII II.Mt 9119. AN I4» 11[91414. WIMPS m W.10A 1WI».11Cmis MIIWI If JIX-WI IMIf1.11 • »unwY 4rpnvw, pr9•r e1 4p I1414IN1n ILIu[Llf, r unr....r hsnl NMMII. 9,. Y MRwN WWI0 1. IWIM" In9wnt «, off., N wt.. N YbIM N W M IM -Ii ufd19I411V{IIfW(i.M7i[.,1 ....°•—q[—t�r•jlm a'G�i•II Ti«[orp.°iii�. r..., Iru[, t4ny, »lwewu noel el Wlm.pu nr fvnlulm MJrn Lown or I« NINe1M an11°tnt rl .nlal«W Nle.. ul. er IN ierpmTM, YTih�R«ZTa —1/rtsfTiEwit-Lrl»4firw'L¢1xx55°tIRI6tEIN11TIh�JeriirT'': an [IY.... .... .... NMF AT IIIIa01.1 4Ir�nNM [Hera f[unr 4 TIN N Mr.uM 14x11°1111°I A. tftl1.44,WIX.fTIN[C. wlll.ry'a:•Ilir..IrA. ATlY Mu11111N W I.awlO IY.W 4e(fl%.11• N [�w•Ib upm µ1.1.i InN uu I L•n .urn. W b11� W nlny ti«••N WY wni ren n I.Yt4 W Ie11IP.M.YI yl. Nn 1• . wl t ro u u -N il...,o .i�Aul.~ w W 1111. °r .11 m, i.W ran•«• : • w m.mM�r�•[[a 1 [.. _�".: ,• ,�. N • . r MII[ Np+•P ° tllmuu ma• Ir ra:..lx: rna.Taa,:.w. .1 . »IIRIT, 1111.111. wn.r..lY m. 4u Own a IM r°r.Olro Nmryr'. [Y.nnW YI «Illa11N11 «r.n ro w« _.l.r .. _._.. _._. L_Ir IY. x. 1x91 Mruner Ig1iiY��--_� nV111n.•el ry [wunM 191.11_ 0a 411 paN .. Y W—M LI, 11».... I. 'I"[..,1 °r IIYn, nlralwu W.•M YY !III. [III tM[IL 4 [WM. »I W WII NIW16 Y Wll.r }II, 4•n °I n1AF.1•. 1,11 Inl° !III Nl lna •uprnw Inl1 __NI el _________ . IM_ 11: --_---- lnnl a 1111419/ tW1 W W In.rn .uM 41. �m1 Nom__... . lu}�. ImMn ewF, ml:u—reser rar:n�--.-_ »M•LI N11LIr Wt 41 IYIM°t N• IIIN N 14 Nen. N 14 (Nvl} WwYr 1°r mer.. .n ! ul , If__JI [rriy M.am SUNDE LAND SURVEYING IN, 0 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Twenty -Three PROPOSED NUISANCE ORDINANCE E. Consideration of a Nuisance Ordinance -- For several months, members of the City Council have discussed the possibility of con- sidering either a good neighbor ordinance or nuisance ordinance for regulatory enforcement within the community. In contacting the League of Minnesota Cities and other communities, the city is unable to track any other entity that has a good neighbor ordi- nance. However, many communities do have an ordinance that addres- ses many of the good neighbor issues that have been raised before the City Council in the form of a nuisance ordinance. The Adminis- trative Intern, Mike Johnson, has researched the model nuisance ordinance that was prepared by the League of Minnesota Cities and reviewed a number of nuisance ordinances of surrounding communities. For a copy of the model nuisance offered by the League of Minnesota Cities, refer to pages J,55' through /40 . Since there were some clauses that differed in various ordin cnaes found in surrounding communities, those additional clauses were singled out by the Ad- ministrative Intern and are found on page 16 1 . The City Council may want to consider the incorporation of some of those clauses into the model ordinance. The nuisance ordinance is being presented to the City Council for review and consideration. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the nuisance ordinance as presented and/or modified or continue the ordinance for further consideration. (S -T r ;DRAFT' CITY OF EAGAN DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE # AN ORDINANCE DEFINING AND PROHIBITING NUISANCES AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION The City Council of Eagan ordains: SECTION 1. PUBLIC NUISANCE DEFINED. Whoever by his act or failure to perform a legal duty intentionally does any of the following is guilty of maintaining a public nuisance, which is a misdemeanor: (1) Maintains or permits a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures, or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any con- siderable number of members of the public; or (2) Interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage any public highway or right-of-way, or waters used by the public; or (3) Is guilty of any other act or omission declared by law or this ordinance to be a public nuisance and for which no sentence is specifically pro- vided. SECTION 2. PUBLIC NUISANCES AFFECTING HEALTH. The following are hereby declared to be nuisances affecting health: (1) Exposed accumulation of decayed or unwholesome food or vegetable matter; (2) All diseased animals running at large; (3) All ponds or pools of stagnant water; (4) Carcasses of animals not buried or destroyed within 24 hours after death; (5) Accumulations of manure, refuse, or other debris; (6) Privy vaults and garbage cans which are not rodent -free or fly -tight or which are so maintained as to constitute a health hazard or to emit foul and disagreeable odors; (7) The pollution of any public well or cistern, stream or lake, canal or body of water by sewage, industrial waste, or other substances; /5 -ti- 0 0 (8) All noxious weeds and other rank growths of vegetation upon public or private property; (9) Dense smoke, noxious fumes, gas and soot, or cinders, in unreasonable quantities; (10) All public exposure of persons having a contagious disease; (11) Any offensive trade or business as defined by statute not operating under local license. SECTION 3. PUBLIC NUISANCES AFFECTING MORALS AND DECENCY. The following are hereby declared to be nuisances affecting public morals and decency: (1) All gambling devices, slot machines and punch boards, except as otherwise authorized by Ordinance #70; (2) Betting, bookmaking, and all apparatus used in such occupations; (3) All houses kept for the purpose of prostitution or promiscuous sexual intercourse, gambling houses, houses of ill fame, and bawdy houses; (4) All places where intoxicating liquor is manufactured or disposed of in violation of law or where, in violation of law, persons are permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquor, or where intoxicating liquor is kept for sale or other disposition in violation of law, and all liquor and other property used for maintaining such a place; (5) Any vehicle used for the transportation of intoxicating liquor, or for promiscuous sexual intercourse, or any other immoral or illegal behavior. SECTION 4. PUBLIC NUISANCES AFFECTING PEACE AND SAFETY. The following are declared to be nuisances affecting public peace and safety: (1) All snow and ice not removed from public sidewalks 12 hours after the snow or other precipitation causing the condition has ceased to fall; (2) All trees, hedges, billboards, or other obstructions which prevent per- sons from having a clear view of all traffic approaching an intersection; /56 -2- 0 0 (3) All wires and limbs of trees which are so close to the surface of a sidewalk or street as to constitute a danger to pedestrians or vehicles; (4) All unnecessary noises and annoying vibrations; (5) Obstructions and excavations affecting the ordinary use by the public of streets, alleys, sidewalks, or public grounds except under such con— ditions as are permitted by this code or other applicable law; (6) Radio aerials or television antennae erected or maintained in a dangerous manner; (7) Any use of property abutting on a public street or sidewalk or any use of a public- street or sidewalk which causes large crowds of people to gather, obstructing traffic and the free use of the street or side— walk; (8) All hanging signs, awnings, and other similar structures over streets and sidewalks, or so situated so as to endanger public safety, or not constructed and maintained as provided by ordinance; (9) The allowing of rain water, ice, or snow to fall from any building or 'structure upon any street or sidewalk or to flow across any sidewalk; (10) Any barbed wire fence less than six feet above the ground and within three feet of a public sidewalk or way; (11) All dangerous, unguarded machinery in any public place, or so situated or operated on private property as to attract the public; (12) Waste water cast upon or permitted to flow upon streets or other public property; (13) Accumulations in the open of discarded or disused machinery, household appliances, automobile bodies, or other material, in a manner conducive to the harboring of rats, mice, snakes, or vermin, or the rank growth of vegetation among the items so accumulated, or in a manner creating fire, health, or safety hazards from such accumulation. /57 -3- 0 0 (14) Any well, hole, or similar excavation which is left uncovered or in such other condition as to constitute a hazard to any child or other person coming on the premises where it is located; (15) Obstruction to the free flow of water in a natural waterway or a public street drain, gutter, or ditch with trash or other materials; (16) The placing or throwing on any street, sidewalk, or other public property of any glass, tacks, nails, bottles, or other substance which may injure any person or animal or damage any pneumatic tire when passing over such substance; (17) The depos'iting of garbage or refuse on a public right-of-way or on adjacent private property; (18) All other conditions or things which are likely to cause injury to the person or property of anyone. SECTION 5. DUTIES OF CITY OFFICERS. The (city engineer, street superintendent, police department, or other designated official) shall enforce the provisions of this ordinance relating to nuisances affecting public safety. The police department shall enforce provisions relating to other nuisances and shall assist the other designated officer(s) in the enforcement of provisions relating to nuisances affecting public safety. Such officers shall have the power to inspect private premises and take all reasonable precau- tions to prevent the commission and maintenance of public nuisances. SECTION 6. ABATEMENT. Whenever the officer charged with enforcement determines that a public nuisance is being maintained or exists on premises in the city, the officer 'shall notify in writing the owner or occupant of the premises of such fact and order that such nuisance be terminated and abated. The notice shall be served in person or by certified or registered mail. If the premises are not occupied and the owner is unknown, the notice may be served by posting it on the premises. The notice shall specify the steps to be taken to abate 1513 -4- 0 0 the nuisance and the time, not exceeding 30 days, within which the nuisance is to be abated. If the notice is not complied with within the time specified, the enforcing officer shall report that fact forthwith to the council. There- after the council may, after notice to the owner or occupant and an opportunity to be heard, provide for abating the nuisance by the city. The notice shall be served in the same manner as notice by the enforcing officer is served and shall be given at least ten days before the date stated in the notice when the council will consider the matter. If notice is given by posting, at least 30 days shall elapse between the day of posting and the hearing. SECTION 7. RECOVERY OF COST. Subdivision 1. Personal liability. The owner of premises on which a nuisance has been abated by the city shall be personally liable for the cost to the city of the abatement, including administrative costs. As soon as the work has been completed and the cost determined, the city clerk or other official designated by the council shall prepare a bill for the cost and mail it to the owner. Thereupon the amount shall be immediately due and payable at the office of the city clerk. Subdivision 2. Assessment. If the nuisance is a public health or safety hazard on private property, the accumulation of snow and ice on public sidewalks, the growth of weeds on private property or outside the traveled portion of streets, or unsound or insect -infected trees, the clerk shall, on or before September 1 next following abatement of the nuisance, list the total unpaid charges along with all other such charges as well as other charges for current services to be assessed under Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101 against each separate lot or parcel to which the charges are attributable. The council may then spread the charges against such property under that statute and other pertinent statutes for certification to the county auditor and collection along with current taxes the following year or in annual installments, not exceeding ten, as the council may determine in each case. /S 9 _5_ 0 SECTION 8. PENALTY. Any person convicted of violating any provisions of this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both, plus the costs of prosecution in either case. Adopted this day of , 198 . ATTEST: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF EAGAN By: By: City Clerk Its Mayor Date Ordinance Adopted: Date Published in the Legal Newspaper: /6o -6- 0 0 ADDITIONAL NUISANCE CLAUSES FROM SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES (1) In order to prevent the spread of communicable disease, the use of common drinking cups in public places, public conveyances and public buildings is hereby prohibited. (2) The distribution of samples of medicines or drugs unless such samples are placed in the hands of an adult person. (3) Abandoned, unattended or discarded iceboxes, refrigerators, or any other container of any kind which has an airtight snap lock or other device thereon, without first removing said snap lock or door from said icebox, refrigerator or container. (4) Annoy, injure or endanger the safety, comfort or repose of the public. (5) All indecent or obscene pictures, books, pamphlets, magazines and news- papers. (6) Look, gaze, stare or peep in the windows of a house or place of dwelling of another with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the household thereof. q Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Twenty -Four EXTENSION OF TIME - E.L. MURPHY I.R. FINANCING F. E. L. Murphy/Extension of L. Murphy Trucking Company is their preliminary resolution financing. For a copy of the sion, refer to a copy of /L 3 Time for I. R. Financing -- The E. requesting a one-year extension for regarding industrial revenue bond reasons for their request for exten- the attached letter found on page ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny a one year extension of time on the industrial revenue financing for E. L. Murphy Trucking. /6 2L September 27, 1982 Mr. Tom Hedges, City Administrator CITY OF EAGAN 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mr. Hedges: HEAVY SPECIALIACARRIER M NATIONWIDE SERVICE TRUCKING COMPANY P.O. BOX 43010 • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55164 Phone: (612) 454750 E. L. Murphy Trucking Company respectfully requests the City of Eagan to grant us a one year extension of our preliminary resolution regarding industrial revenue bond financing. This request is based on the fact that our decision to go ahead with our original plans to expand our trucking facility became uncertain in terms of the present economic conditions and recent federal legislation which has deregulated the trucking industry. We sincerely appreciated any consideration you may give to this request for an extension of time. Yours truly, E., L,--MURU'R•P.H/Y TRUCKING COMPANY Richard F. Miller Vice President, Finance RFM/rmc X63 "MURPHY MAGIC NATIONWIDE" Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Twenty -Five CONTRACT 82-13 A. Contract 82-13, Approve Plans & Specifications/Order Advertise- ment for Bids (Brittany Fourth Addition & Safari Reservoir - Trunk Water Main) -- With the submission of the petition for the installa- tion of trunk water main for the Brittany Fourth Addition, the developer waived his rights to a public hearing and requested the preparation of detailed plans and specifications in hopes that construction might be performed yet this year. Detailed plans and specifications were prepared simultaneously with the feasibility report and are also being presented to the Council for consideration on October 5. Therefore, if the public hearing is closed for Pro- ject 364 and the project is approved, it would be appropriate for the Council to consider approving the detailed plans and specifica- tions and ordering an advertisement for bids for the installation of trunk water main within the Brittany Fourth Addition. In addition, the staff is recommending that the installation of the trunk watermain to service the Safari 4.0 MG water reservoir be included under this contract so that the best possible price can be obtained. By combining both projects under one 'contract, it is felt that the most economic current prices can be obtained. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve plans and speci- fications for Contract 82-13 (Brittany Fourth Addition & Safari Reservoir - Trunk Water Main) and authorize the advertisement for bids with a bid opening to be held at 10:30 a.m. on October 27, 1982. STOP SIGN PETITION - SIGFRID STREET B. Stop Sign Petition, Sigfrid Street at Sequoia Drive -- On September 21, a petition was presented to the City Council re- questing the installation of a stop sign on Sigfrid Street with the intersection of Sequoia Drive. Enclosed on pages6(� through Z67 is a copy of the petition as received and a ocation map re erencing the property owners who signed the petition. In re- viewing this intersection and the traffic volumes associated with it, it is staff's recommendation that this request for stop sign be denied. This recommendation is based on the following facts: 1. There is very limited traffic volume associated with this intersection as only approximately 27 property owners use this intersection from this subdivision. 2. The only individuals using this intersection are those people who live in the area and should be well aware of the neigh- borhood children in this area. 3. At the time of school bus loading and unloading, the school bus provides for the required stop control at this inter- section. 19 9 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Twenty -Six 4. Because of the proximity of this intersection to the stop sign on Pilot Knob Road and "T" intersection at Lodgepole Drive, the speed of the traffic through this intersection is well within the legal speed limit. 5. Staff has concerns about potential objections from property owners on Lodgepole Drive that are expected once the stop sign is installed. If stop signs are to be considered for this intersection, the staff recommends that they be installed on Sequoia Drive, controlling the north/southbound traffic through this intersection. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the petition and approve or deny the installation of stop signs at the inter- section of Sigfrid Street with Sequoia Drive. 165' �J I/we, the undersigned hereby install stop signs on S at the intersection with 0 PE 1TION �r, the city Council of the City of Fagan to I/we, request this installation for the follaaing reasons: q 1. The, -r ra -ft „ J10a 1�'.� ,O 'top 2- 0 vNZ(i- v� �e<sfi3O� 1 S Z S C ,' I had 3. ,r kvv-..e, a -to I Ck L-Id/K rk-, I* 4. JndE jd" I I/we request that the City Council take this petition request under consideration at its earliest opportunity and that we be informed as to when it is scheduled so that we may appear in person if we so choose. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. NAME (Please print and initial)': ADDRESS Lam/ ffm LY, !j'.7 i %- b/I mt4 4'ONxasa f"'. aro w GON)l 380 LOW e. 3AItla---b�' Vit' % ;Q.:""� •`; ::'::';: �:::: , ':b' t IMI ...,.. ! . '..' ! y • .Y, W Y•YY )•��` S IIr�. C -VE t1 _ NEFELM ° 1 iLaar�VI ■ •.�♦ „�± ` , 3A;1/0 A'I'L -.,1.. p 1 • f i YI ` ao�e• • p y f V�_ ` Oda bo cc F �s,: r ° ,. =N01:11' ab'=--�5 � ■ �`'�.,1"�� ;� Jif �i o ! "'� I{zi__ a .�e.Xu ! t .p R:t.e ,T", ° �'—_-•. ,..,.. a ' / ' ••� V � I• f , e r' pu1_.. .IX17X � p r :{.r p I r... ■ !i '.f t) • 1 w f I. ♦ G Y• cu Z,,. : ! ♦,% + .Y ll / • / ,_{}ice° , pI}, • • �'/�•r f • I Int^• s y\. 0. \\ ♦ I , ate' P f':_F,•+ +. 1 • 1 t �•�� ,•' I1. • i s f. �'�• r.l, fy I 0. L 10 -47 Pea • • `I � `{� 1,0 : L •`'f+111�111 a _.• �� � �' i 1 . J11 � t 9 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Twenty -Seven 0 STOP SIGN REQUEST - FEDERAL & WASHINGTON DRIVES C. Stop Sign Request, Federal Drive & Washington Drive -- Enclosed on page is a copy of a letter the City received from the representatives of the Comsery Corporation which is presently leasing offices from the Yankee Square Building I located in the northeast corner of Washington Drive and Federal Drive. Because this is not a formal petition from affected property owners, there is no location map or formal petition form available at this time. On pages Iby through 171 are copies of the street map referencing the intersection reque—stere for consideration. With the completion of I -35E, Federal Drive will become a minor collector providing an access to the Blackhawk Hills Addition due to the elimination of the Englert Road connection to Pilot Knob Road. Therefore, this will become the major throughway providing road access to Section 16. Presently, Washington Drive, east of Federal Drive, provides access to the Yankee Square commercial area. West of Federal Drive (Surrey Heights Drive) is presently an internal resi- dential street servicing only that subdivision. Therefore, present- ly, the major traffic movement through this intersection is from Federal Drive onto Washington Drive. Because of the present "T" intersection, the engineering department can understand how traffic movement can be confusing. Therefore, based on the present configu- ration of this intersection, the existing traffic movement patterns and the anticipated future extension of Federal Drive, the staff would recommend that a stop sign be placed on Surrey Heights Drive and Washington Drive at its intersection with Federal Drive. This would allow Federal Drive free movement through the intersection. This would also help to discourage any commercial traffic from Washington Drive proceeding west into the Surrey Heights Subdivision. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the letter of concerns for stop sign from Comsery and approve or deny staff's recommendation for stop sign control at the intersection of Washing ton Drive with Federal Drive. 1618 • September 13, 1982 Mayor Bea Bloomquist City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55123 Dear Mayor Bloomquist, Applications Softwar• Industry Consulting Educational Services Data Center Services _ Comsery Corporation 1385 Mendota Heights Road Mendota Heights. MN 55120 (612) 452-7770 I would like to request that the City of Eagan provide a stop sign(s) at the intersection of Federal Drive (street) and Washington Drive. Last Friday (September 11th) there was a 10-52 accident with injuries, involving one of our employees. In addition, I have had numberous reports of near accidents (misses) at that intersection from several employees. Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. S• cer , Patrick T. O'Malley Facilities Administrator xc: Mr. Gerry Faehn Mr. Jack Arvig PO/lp/03 169 e•smn ChiraAn • Clrvdund • D.U. • /lnunnn • /a. An,r/vs • M1linnrapnlG • PhiW Iphlu • Pimburxh • Sr.!suis • ,San Franrixo . S_nurrsr • N'innon S./nn /)ublin, /rr/anA lan6,n. Fntla.d .1lydm G!v. 3f,,, • To.unro. Cu nu de �NKEE Fd. No. 28 ) I PUBLIC IWORKS -� GARAGE 1 m, le mac! J > BL ACKHAWK V, nc� J * DEERW NEL/ N IRK / 1RK / / I / RD, / A, r r� i I—J_ CKHAWK I I J HILLS RD. I I 1 I I I 2 II I II 1 I C/TY HALL .41000 IDGE V agPEPARME, zcrL /CE Oli a Ir w Y III'd W(' `' t � L _— /T Z IPEERCLi ,�jLWINDCF pvE. r1 740 i 1- 0 s �1 J C 1 I � ¢ pCOUNTY P H °I 4 N. Ev ?/4 S ECO T6 9 T. 279.1 x HIGH I J•°•CHIS ME\Gy,; • SES • • { w OYILOT - V s [ ♦ • = 6' a e x x r nose lrtn —v NO 28 x i :w.su: aam � it ;e.•.%. .a na ; ( YANKEE W- a� DOODLE R fC i CFNT�� x :N s SEGOui w� o »m .eMn ui[ n,m-,,I, __-- a,rnw..j• naw z 1-w axax u., N<SJ< sa P a a SpN" e�aa f�SStN • ri1 1 , P y +„•oaei �x vf'J9• :o DRIVE 21• e a a a•e J' •lq'. are. aerla�+•u f s I x • a x s Oy I �R.ecel:<ntt.[�el j SroP S/F„rs 24 p01 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Twenty -Eight GRADING/EXCAVATION PERMIT - SHEFFIELD ADDITION D. Grading/Excavation Permit, Sheffield Addition (Gabbert Develop- ment, Inc.) -- If the preliminary plat for the Sheffield Addition is approved under Old Business of the October S agenda, the developer would like to receive consideration for approval of a grading/excavation permit to allow him to begin his grading opera- tions prior to receiving final plat approval due to the quickly diminishing construction season. The grading plan has been approved and all insurance certificates and performance bonds have been satisfactorily submitted. With all things being in order, the staff is recommending the approval of this request. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the appli- cation for a grading/excavation permit for the Sheffield Addition (Gabbert Development Addition). Gtomon a'aA City Administrat 1-7Z. REGULAR MEETING EAGAN CITY COUNCIL EAGAN, MINNESOTA CITY HALL OCTOBER 5, 1982 6:30 P.M. AGENDA I. 6:30 — ROLL CALL & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. 6:33 — ADOPT AGENDA & APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. 6:35 — DEPARTMENT HEAD BUSINESS V1 A. Fire Department ,1 B. Police Department ,7•k C. Park Department 1 D. Public Works Department e IV. 6:55 — CONSENT ITEMS (One motion approves all items) { A. Conditional Use Permit Renewals : 7 B. Contract 82-7, Change Order #1, Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition �•� C. Safari at Eagan Erosion Control/Clean Up Q $ D. General Election Judges Qj0 E. Withdraw Cedar Bluff townhouse Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bond Project V. 7:00 — PUBLIC HEARINGS 1'l A. Project #297—R, Public Hearing, Blackhawk Lake Trunk Storm F, Sewer (Bryant, Horne and Ashfeld) ?%S B. Project #361, Wescott Road Sanitary Sewer 110 C. Project #364, Brittany Fourth Addition, Trunk Water Main i A1.D. Project #365, Northview Meadows First Addition, Trunk Sewer & Water 0E. Cable Television RFP (Request for Proposals) P� VI. OLD BUSINESS �1•q3 A. Consideration of a Wind Energy System & Radio/TV Tower Ordinance 1� (UL B. David R. & Patricia B. Odell for Preliminary Plat, Odell's Addition, Consisting of Approximately One Acre & Containing 2 Single Family Lots in Part of Lot 2, McCarthy Ridge Addition, Section 9 4.,110 C. Gabbert Development, Inc., for a Preliminary Plat, Sheffield Addition, Consisting of Approximately 11.36 Acres and Containing 44 Single Family Lots Located in Part of the E' of the SE'k of Section 26 .i3•� D. Extension of Time for Preliminary Plat of Lexington Place E. Consideration of a Subdivision Ordinance ,ek%l F. Establish Mill Rate Certification Payable 1983 0 0 Eagan City Council Agenda October 5, 1982 Page Two VII. NEW BUSINESS ply A. Peace Reformed Church, Building Addition/Site Plan on Nicols Road Paul R. Larson for Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PD (Planned QDevelopment) to Allow a Townhouse and Single Family Development and preliminary plat, Blackhawk Oaks, Consisting of Townhouse Units and Single Family Lots in Part of the NE'k of the NE'k of Section 20 �,.150C. Final Plat Consideration for Brittany Fourth Addition 153-D. Final Plat Consideration for Oakwood Heights ltE. Consideration of a Nuisance Ordinance e.�by F. E. L. Murphy/Extension of Time for I. R. Financing VIII. ADDITIONAL ITEMS e, 164 A. Contract 82-12, Approve Plans and Specifications/Order Advertisement for Bids (Brittany Fourth Addition & Safari Reservoir — Trunk Water Main Q ldtr B. Stop Sign Petition, Sigfrid Street at Sequoia Drive C. Stop Sign Request, Federal Drive & Washington Drive ?*111D. *1 14% D. Grading/Excavation Permit, Sheffield Addition (Gabbert Development) 1 IX. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (For those persons not on the agenda) X. ADJOURNMENT i MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1982 SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION After approval of the September 21, 1982 regular City Council minutes and the October 5, 1982 City Council agenda, the following items are in order for consideration: DEPARTMENT HEAD BUSI—NE-771 FIRE DEPARTMENT A. Fire Department -- There are no items to be discussed for the Fire Department at this time. POLICE DEPARTMENT B. Police Department -- There are no items to be discussed for the Police Department at this time. PARK DEPARTMENT C. Park Department -- There are no items to be discussed for the Park Department at this time. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT D. Public Works Department -- Item #1: Traffic Signal Installation Cliff Road with Galax Avenue ackhawk Roa intersection -- Cliff t e recent re ocation o tie a axy Avenue intersection with Cliff Road necessitated by the forthcoming construction of I -35E, the engineering department has growing concerns pertaining to ade- quate traffic control and traffic safety at this newly created four way intersection of Blackhawk Road/Galaxy Avenue with Cliff Road. It is anticipated that this will become a major intersection resulting from the following facts: 1. Cliff Road traffic volume is steadily increasing and recently has witnessed a jump in traffic volumes due to its being a designated detour for the traffic from Apple Valley due to the southerly extension of the Cedar Avenue Freeway. Present traffic volumes are estimated at approximately 20,000 vehicles per day through this intersection. 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Two It is anticipated Road to the Apple mately November 1. that Galaxy Avenue upgrading from Cliff Valley border will be completed by approxi - The proposed upgrading of Blackhawk Road between Cliff Road and County Road 30 is expected to be performed during 1983. 4. During 1983/84, construction of the interchange of I -35E with County Road 30 necessitates that Blackhawk Road be designated a detour route for County Road 30. Proposed completion of upgrading Galaxy Avenue through Apple Valley is expected to promote greater traffic volumes onto Galaxy Avenue and ultimately through this intersection. Based on these concerns, Representative Carolyn Rodriguez and the Apple Valley City Council have expressed concerns pertaining to traffic safety at this intersection. On September 29, a meeting was held with Dakota County, Apple Valley, Eagan and MnDOT per- taining to potential signalization of this intersection. Through the efforts of Representative Rodriguez, MnDOT is willing to provide the signal head and controller cabinet hardware for the signaliza- tion of this intersection, even through present MnDOT policy does not provide for MnDOT participation at the intersection of a county road with a local city street. Because of the forthcoming con- struction of the interchange of I -35E with Cliff Road, any signali- zation performed at this intersection would have to be performed in two stages to coincide with the upgrading of Cliff Road due to I -35E. Subsequently, Dakota County has indicated that they would be willing to present a resolution from the City Council requesting signalization of this intersection if the City of Eagan would be willing to participate in its 50% fair share for the cost of signalization. The estimated cost of providing the phase one signalization with MnDOT providing the signal head and controller cabinet hardware is estimated at $25,000 with the City of Eagan's responsibility being $12,500. The earliest that this signalization could be in operation is January of 1983. However, winter con- struction may delay its operation until April of 1983. Dakota County estimates that phase two construction of permanent signali- zation at this intersection could be accomplished in late 1984 at an estimated cost at that time of $80,000 of which the City's responsibility would be $40,000. There would be no MnDOT participa- tion in the second phase construction. Therefore, in order for the County to pursue potential signalization of this intersection, they indicate that it is necessary for the City Council to formally approve the resolution enclosed on page he indicating their concurrence to participate in the cost associate with this project. 9- 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Three They have indicated any delay in consideration of this will elimi- nate the potential for having the first phase in operation by Jan- uary of 1983. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny a resolu- tion for participation with Dakota County for the signalization of the intersection of Cliff Road with Galaxy Avenue/Blackhawk Road. 3 • CITY OF EAGAN • RESOLUTION TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION COUNTY ROAD 32 (CLIFF ROAD) WITH GALAXY AVENUE/BLACKHAWK ROAD WHEREAS, the traffic volumes on County Road 32 (Cliff Road) is presently estimated at 20,000 A.D.T. and expected to in- crease; and WHEREAS, MnDOT will be awarding a contract for the con- struction of I -35E interchange with County Road 32 (Cliff Road); and WHEREAS, Galaxy Avenue from Apple Valley to County Road 32 (Cliff Road) will be completed and open to traffic by November 1982; and WHEREAS, Blackhawk Road from County Road 30 (Diffley Road) to County Road 32 (Cliff Road) is anticipated to be upgraded and designated as a detour for County Road 30 from fall 1983 to 1985; and WHEREAS, the City of Apple Valley is presently using County Road 32 (Cliff Road) and is expected to use Galaxy Avenue as a detour for construction of T.H. 77 and County Road 23, thereby. increasing traffic volumes through this intersection; and WHEREAS, MnDOT will provide the signal heads and control- ler cabinet hardware for the first phase of this signalization; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eagan that Dakota County is hereby requested to prepare a cost participation agreement between the City and the County to provide for temporary and ultimate permanent installation of signals at the intersection of County Road 32 (Cliff Road) with Galaxy Avenue south of Blackhawk Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Dakota County is hereby re- quested to initiate phase one of this signalization installation at the earliest possible date. Motion by: Seconded by: Members in favor: Members opposed: ATTEST: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF EAGAN City erMayor 19 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Four Item #2: Major Intersection Streetlight Installation -- On Septem- err T, the mit L�directe sta to review t e major intersec- tion streetlight installation program to compare the staff's priori- ty listing in relationship to those locations that have specifically been requested by residents of the community. While keeping in mind the 1982 budget for streetlight installation of $7,000, a modified list has been prepared and is enclosed on page (o for the Council's information. This is a listing of the t�3 priority locations as defined by staff. Those locations that staff has received specific requests from residents for are so noted by the asterisk (*). This table provides two different monthly energizing rates together with the different amounts of capital contribution by the City for both Dakota Electric Association (DEA) and Nothern States Power (NSP) facilities. As can be seen, through the various combinations of City "up front" contributions, any different number of streetlights can be installed. A major factor for consideration is the cost savings on the monthly energy rate as compared to the additional installation costs. With DEA, if the City provides the additional $500 installation cost, it will incur a $1.60 a month energy rate saving at today's rates. Exclu- ding interest considerations, this results in a 26 -year "buy back" before the City could realize any cost savings based on today's differential in the present rate structure. For NSP, it is a 20- 22 year "buy back" period before any reasonable cost savings could be incurred. If the interest factor were to be taken into consi- deration, this "buy back" period would approximately double. Based on this information, staff would recommend that the City provide limited contribution on installation costs, assume the higher month- ly energy rate and install all of the streetlights at major inter- sections presently designated during 1982. This would result in a reduction of the proposed $8,000 for capital expenditures for installation of major intersection streetlights proposed for the 1983 budget to approximately $2,000. This will also eliminate the City's maintenance responsibilities for these streetlights due to any damage or vandalism that may occur because they will be under the ownership and maintenance of the utility company. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To review the major intersec- tion streetlight installation recommendations and authorize staff to proceed accordingly. Ir CH *Citizen requested installation DEA NSP No City Contribution City Contribution NSP.Installed City Installed LOCATION BY PRIORITY Cost Rate Cost Rate Cost Rate Cost Rate 1. Blackhawk Road & Silver Bell Road 135.00 7.75 635.00 6.15 * 2. Pilot Knob Road & Deerwood Drive 180.00 9.25 680.00 7.65 * 3. Cliff Road & Galaxie/Blackhawk 180.00 9.25 680.00 7.65 * 4. Malmo Place and County Road 30 180.00 9.25 680.00 7.65 5. McCarthy Road and Highway 13 250.00 10.80 1,950.00 3.80 6. Pilot Knob Road and Wescott Road 180.00 9.25 680.00 7.65 • * 7. Lexington Ave. and Wescott Road 180.00 9.25 680.00 7.65 * 8. Nicols Road and Shale lane 450.00 10.80 1,950.00 3.80 * 9. Eagan Industrial Rd and Pilot Knob Rd. 60.00 10.80 1,950.00 3.80 *10. Pilot Knob Rd. & Lakeside Drive 180.00 9.25 680.00 7.65 11. Blackhawk Rd. & Deerwood Dr. 180.00 9.25 680.00 7.65 *12. Pilot Knob Rd. and Englert Rd. 65.00 7.75 565.00 6.15 *13. Yankee Doodle Rd. & Coachman Rd. 250.00 10.80 1,950.00 3.80 SUB -TOTAL $1,460.00 $80.25 5,960.00 $65.85 $1,010.00 $43.20 $7,800.00 $15.20 14. Pilot Knob & Sigfrid 250.00 7.75 750.00 6.15 15. Cliff Road & Slater Road 11100.00 9.25 1,600.00 7.65 a 16. Wescott Road & Elrene Road 65.00 7.75 565.00 6.15 17. Lone Oak Road & Egan Avenue 220.00 10.80 1,950.00 3.80 18. Yankee Doodle Rd. & Elrene Rd 110.00 7.75 610.00 6.15 19. Blackhawk Rd & Turquoise Trail 180.00 9.25 680.00 7.65 CUMMULATIVE SUB -TOTAL $3,165.00 $122.00 10,165.0 $99.60 $1,230.00 $54.00 $9,750.00 $19.0 0 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Five CONSENT AGENDA' There are five (5) items on the agenda referred to as consent items requiring one (1) motion by the City Council. If the City Council desires to discuss any of the items in further detail, those items should be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed under Additional Items unless the discussion required is brief. CONDITIONAL.USE PERMIT RENEWALS A. Conditional Use Permit Renewals -- Two (2) conditional use permit renewals are in order for consideration: 1. Alfred Wiger, 780 Blue Gentian Road, for a group therapy facility, and 2. Orvilla Homes, 3430 Wescott Hills Drive, for a group home. Both conditional use permits are in order for consideration. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the conditional use permit renewals as described. CONTRACT 82-7, CHANGE ORDER B. Contract 82-7, Change Order #1,' Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition Zachman Homes, the developer of the Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition, has indicated that he will not complete his grading in accordance with the approved plan that was submitted in accordance with the final plat for the Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition. Subsequently, because this grading was necessary to allow the installation of the required utilities to service Outlots B, C, and D of the third addition, this utility work has to be deleted from Contract 82- 7. Therefore, Part A provides for the deletion of $19,520 from the contract. Because the omitted work modifies the scope of the project, the contractor has submitted a claim accordingly; this will result in an addition of $6,000 to the contract. In summary, it will cost $6,000 to delete $19,520 work resulting in a net change order of $13,520 to be deducted from the original contract amount. Both items have been reviewed and approved by the contractor and developer. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve Change Order #1 to Contract 82-7 in the amount of a net deduct of $13,520. 0 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Six SAFARI AT EAGAN EROSION CONTROL C. Safari at Eagan Erosion Control/Clean Up -- There has been extensive erosion taking place within the Safari at Eagan subdivi- sion which is resulting in sediments being deposited within the street area and being washed into the storm sewer system. Formal notification has been forwarded to the developer, Mr. Byron Watchke, with no response to date. Therefore, the staff has notified Mr. Watchke by certified mail that the staff will be requesting Council authorization to have the necessary work performed and to file a claim against the bonding company for this development. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To authorize City staff to perform the necessary clean up and restoration to eliminate the present erosion problems within the Safari at Eagan subdivision and to bill the developer through his bonding company for all costs incurred. GENERAL ELECTION JUDGES D. General Election Judges -- During the summer, a list of election judges was approved by the City Council for the primary and general election. The City Clerk feels there will be need for additional judges at the primary election and therefore is recommending fifteen (15) persons to be included as general election judges. Enclosed on page T— is a copy of the list as prepared by the City Clerk. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the list of addi- tional election judges for the general election as presented. [.] 0 ADDITIONAL JUDGES FOE GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 2, 1982' i DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS Joan Grimsrud Vi Gehrke Carolyn Thurston Ruth Ohmann Linda O'Brien Mildred Beck Alyce Bolke Marge Shadduck Bill Reid Joan Bohlig Delores Johnson Carol Hammond Diane Kukowski Joan Wachter INDEPENDENT Marie DesLauriers F' Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Seven CEDARBLUFF TOWNHOME MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS E. Withdrawal of Cedar Bluff Townhouse Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bond Project -- The City has received a letter from Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc., a copy of which is enclosed on page �j , notifying the City that the Cedar Bluff Townhouse $9,000,000 multifamily mortgage revenue bond issue has been withdrawn for further consideration from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. The reason the revenue bond issue was withdrawn is due to the fact that the project owner and developer is not willing to commit the $180,000 as a project commitment. As you recall, Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc., and the City Council felt the developer should contribute some amount of money similar to that of a letter of credit for public improvement projects to assure some participation in the project. Apparently, Mr. Michaelson was not willing to contribute and therefore the application was withdrawn. The City Administrator will prepare a letter to all persons who were in attendance at the public hearing following the action by the City Council to accept for the record the fact that the application was withdrawn. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the withdrawal of the Cedar Bluff Townhouse $9,000,000 multifamily mortgage revenue bond application as submitted to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. 1-0 Toll Free Minnesota (800) 862-6002 • Toll Free Other States (800) 328{122 0 Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. Northwestern Financial Center, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 • (612) 831-1500 September 23, 1982 Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Tom: We are so sorry that the Cedar Bluff Townhouse people could not meet the conditions we agreed were necessary for the City of Eagan to ob- tain bonding authority from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Thank you for the cooperation we received from you and from the Eagan City Council. Paul and I would like to have the opportunity to ex- plain what happened to the Eagan Council. Again, our apologies and thanks. Sincerely, ndrea Lubov AL/ad Enclosure Headquarters Minneapolis. Minnesota Branch Offices: Downtown Min neopolis • Solana Beach, Cali lomia • Northbrook. Illinois • St Pat 1, Minnesota • Naples. Florida • Carson City. Nevada Mem,er of Ike Secunnvs Im,aor pror�ceon Corporation 0 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Eight PROJECT #297-K A. Project #297-R, Public Hearing, Blackhawk Lake Trunk Storm Sewer (Bryant, Horne and Ashfeld) -- At the September 7 Council meeting, the City Council formally vacated the final assessment roll for storm sewer area assessments due to procedural deficiencies for the following described property and ordered a new public hearing process to be initiated at the October 5, 1982 Council meeting: 1. Floyd & Victoria Bryant, Parcel #10-02100-010-04 2. David Ashfeld, Parcel #10-02100-010-02 James Horne, Lot 7, Block 1, Kingswood Addition 4. Horne Development Corporation, Lots 1-6, 8-10, Outlots 1- 3, Kingswood Addition, and Parcel #10-02100-010-01 All aspects of this public hearing are identical to those that were presented at the original public hearing held on May 20, 1980. This project provides for the installation of trunk area storm sewer improvements for the Blackhawk Lake drainage basin. Trunk area storm sewer assessment rates are those that were in effect in 1980 (3.4¢ per square foot). Because the improvement has already been completed and the final assessment rates will not change, it would be appropriate to schedule the final assessment hearing date for November 9, 1982. If any of the Council would like copies of the original feasibility report for Project #297, please inform the staff and they will be forwarded to your attention prior to the meeting. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing for Project #297-R, approve the project, receive the final assess- ment roll and schedule the final assessment hearing to be held on November 9, 1982. 1� 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Nine PROJECT #361 40 $. Project #361, Wescott Road - Trunk Sanitary Sewer -- In response to a petition received from several developers representing approxi- mately 310 acres of land, the City Council on June 15 authorized the preparation of a detailed feasibility report for providing trunk sanitary sewer to the intersection of Wescott Road and Lexing- ton Avenue. The assessment area for this project was determined by present policy' of assessing all property within z mile of the trunk system. However, this trunk assessment area was expanded to incorporate all property owned by several of the developers who had petitioned for this improvement. On September 30, an infor- mational meeting was held at City Hall for all affected property owners explaining the project and the potential assessments asso- ciated with it. There were no major objections from the twelve people in attendance. The following major points should be taken into consideration under this project: 1. This trunk sanitary sewer project is necessary for the pro- gression of the previously approved preliminary plat for the Windcrest Addition and the Lexington Place Subdivision. 2. This project will involve acquisition of extensive easements through the Pat McCarthy property which will more than likely have to be acquired through condemnation. 3. One of the major petitioners (Sienna Corporation) has ex- pressed concerned for ; the proposed lateral benefit of the assessment associated with this trunk project. The consulting engineer, Bob Rosene, will be available to discuss the details involved with this project at the public hearing held on Tuesday. A copy of the report is enclosed on pages _ - through$.7 ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing and approve or deny Project #361 for the installation of trunk sanitary sewer to Wescott Road at Lexington Avenue. 13 0 0 REPORT ON WESCOTT TRUNK SANITARY SEWER PROJECT 361 m EAGAN, MINNESOTA 1982 FILE N0. 49256 Box" iroa, 2oseae, f4a&4" 9 fYd"cia&.d, .lac. 81 Pam4 Mbrwao& /If 0 2335 ?d. 'I ..,A eVyi..ay 36 St. Par. 55»3 PA.., 6J2-636-4600 July 23, 1982 City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Mn. 55122 Attn: Mr. Tom Colbert Re: Wescott Trunk Sanitary Sewer Project 361 Our File No. 49256 Dear Mayor and Council: Ono G. B..'l . P.E. Ro l W. Ronin. P.E. Jowh C Aadrrlik. P.E. Bmdlord A. L mhq, P.E. Rlrhard E T.m,,. P.E. James Cl Mm P.E. Ghmn R. C.k, P E. Kalh A. Gr don. P E. Thomat E. Norm P.E. R(aha.d W. Am. P.E. Rohn G. Schunirhl, P E. Marvin I...Wmlp. P.E. Oaaald C. Rur,oldl, P.E. Jaq A. fimMon. P.E. Mark A. Hamom P.Y.. Ted R. Y'iNd. P. E. MxWd T R.I.... P.E. Omlks A. Niekson Lm M. Pawhky Horton M. ob.. Oerid E. Oban Transmitted herewith is our report for Wescott Trunk Sanitary Sewer, Project 361. This report covers trunk sanitary sewer construction within the Central Dis- trict, Subdistrict C -MM as designated in the 1982 Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan for the City of Eagan. We will be pleased to meet with the council and other interested parties at a mutually convenient time to discuss this report. Yours very truly, BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDEgLFK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Mar A. Hanson MAH:li I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional En 'neer under the lawsofthe State of Minneso Mark A. HansorV Date: �I [,2�. lC r l� Z --Reg. No. L Approved by:'Jf' Nomas A. Colbert Director of Public Works Date: 0786b ES 0 0 WESCOTT TRUNK SANITARY SEWER SCOPE: This project provides for construction of trunk sanitary sewer within subdistrict C -MM in the Central District. as designated in the 1982 Comprehen- sive Sewer Policy Plan for the City of Eagan. Preparation of this feasibility report is the result of a petition re- ceived from three developers in the proposed service area. FEASIBLITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This project is feasible and is in accordance with the 1982 Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan for the City of Eagan. The proj- ect as outlined herein can be carried out as one contract. Estimated project costs presented herein are based on anticipated soil conditions and preliminary alignment considerations. Costs assiciated with easement acquisition are estimates based on results from previous hearings. It is recommended an addendum to this report be prepared prior to approval of plans and specifications outlining more definite costs based on soil boring results and the final alignment. Cost associated with easement acquisition will be known and will be included to reflect an accurate project cost. DISCUSSION: For purposes of discussion this report is separated into two parts. Each part is listed as follows: A. Lift Station and Force Main B. Trunk Gravity Sanitary Sewer A. LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN: It is proposed to construct a lift station at the westerly end of Windcrest Addition and adjacent to the westerly side of Pond JP -6. The lift station will pump through a 12 inch force main located along the westerly line of Windcrest Addition and discharge into an existing 0786b Page 1. 16 0 0 15 inch sanitary sewer at Deerwood Drive. It is also proposed to construct a 10 foot wide gravel drive over the force main to provide access to the lift station in the event development of Windcrest Addition is not scheduled. The proposed lift station will ultimately provide service to 1,100 acres. St. Francis Wood 2nd Addition is the only development which presently exists in the immediate area excepting a few scattered homes and farms. Potential developments, however, are being considered for approximately 250 acres which represents 25% of the service area. The ultimate lift station will be a three pump station with a wet well and dry well. It is recommended as part of this project only two pumps be installed and the third pump be installed in the future as needed. B. TRUNK SANITARY SEWER: Trunk sanitary sewer proposed herein includes con- struction of an 18 inch and 15 inch sanitary sewer from the proposed lift sta- tion to Lexington Avenue at Wescott Road. The proposed alignment is shown on the attached drawing at the back of this report. The alignment of the trunk sanitary sewer follows adjacent to Ponds JP -6 and JP -10, as designated in the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan for the City of Eagan. The proposed alignment between each pond follows through well defined ravines. The depth of the san- itary sewer in its deepest location is 48 feet. The proposed sanitary sewer alignment follows adjacent to William Brothers Pipeline at various locations. The distance between the pipeline and the san- itary sewer will vary dependent on the depth of sanitary sewer at a given lo- cation. 0786b Page 2. 17 AREA TO BE INCLUDED: ASSESSMENT AREA SECTION 14 NW 1/4 Parcel 010-28 Parcel 010-29 SW 1/4 Parcel 010-52 Parcel 030-53 Parcel 041-53 Parcel 043-53 Parcel 044-53 Parcel 050-53 WILLIAM 6 LARUE ADDITION Lot 1, 2, 3, 4, Blk. 1 SECTION 15 SE 1/4 Parcel 010-76 ST. FRANCIS WOOD ADDITION Outlot A, B, and C SECTION 22 NE 1/4 Parcel 011-01 Parcel 012-01 Parcel 010-02 Parcel 011-04 SE 1/4 Parcel 011-85 Parcel 011-86 SW 1/4 Parcel 014-54 Parcel 015-54 CONSTRUCTION AREA SECTION 15 SE 1/4 Parcel 010-76 SECTION 22 NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Parcel 016-54 Parcel 040-51 Parcel 050-51 Parcel 060-51 NW 1/4 Parcel 011-25 - Windcrest Addition 0786b Page 3. /9, Parcel 010-01 Parcel 010-04 Parcel 011-25 Windcrest Addn. 0 0 SECTION 23 NW 1/4 Parcel 010-27 Parcel 010-28 Parcel 011-26 Parcel 012-25 Parcel 013-25 Parcel 014-25 SW 1/4 Parcel 010-50 Parcel 010-51 Parcel 020-50 COST ESTIMATE: Detailed cost estimates are presented at the back of this re- port. A summary of these costs are as follows: A. Lift Station and Force Main $187,900 B. Trunk Gravity Sanitary Sewer 499,140 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST ......... $687,040 The total estimated project cost as outlined herein including contingen- cies and all related overhead is $687,040. Overhead costs are estimated at 27% and include legal, engineering, administration and bond interest. EASEMENTS: It is assumed easements required for construction of sanitary sewer within Windcrest Addition (Parcel 011-25, Section 22) and Lexington South, Inc. (Parcel 011-01, Section 22) will be acquired at no cost. It is assumed, however, easement costs will be incurred through McCarthy's property (Parcel 011-04, Section 22). Costs associated with acquisition of permanent easement is estimated at $8,000/acre while temporary construction easement is estimated at $5,000/acre. A summary of these costs are as follows: Parcel Owner Permanent Temporary Est'd. Cost SECTION 22 NE 1/4 - Parcel 011-04 McCarthy 1.3 Acres 6.5 Acres 42,900 TOTAL EASEMENT ......... $42,900 0786b Page 4. L7 0 0 ASSESSMENTS: Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited property as shown on the attached drawing. A preliminary assessment roll is included at the back of this report. It is proposed to assess the area as outlined on the attached drawing for trunk area sanitary sewer oversize. It is also proposed to assess lateral benefit from trunk sanitary sewer per front foot for each side of the trunk sewer that is benefited. The trunk sanitary sewer area rate and the lateral benefit from trunk sanitary sewer rate will be based on rates in effect at the time of the public hearing and will not be affected by the actual costs of the project. A summary of these rates at the time of this report are as follows: Trunk Sanitary Sewer Oversize - Unplatted $995/acre - Platted Residential $475/Lot Lateral Service from Trunk Sanitary Sewer $16.00/front ft. REVENUE SOURCES: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this project are as follows: SANITARY SEWER Project Cost Trunk Sanitary Sewer $687,040.00 Trunk Area Assessment Lateral Benefit from Trunk San. Sewer Easement 42,900.00 $729,940.00 0786b Page 5. Zo Revenue $449,421.15 122,400.00 Balance $571,821.15 -$158,118.85 0 0 It is estimated $158,118.85 will be required from the trunk fund to fi- nance this project. It should also be noted that revenue for lateral benefit from trunk sanitary sewer and trunk area sanitary sewer in the amount of $102,600 is indicated for Parcel 011-04, Section 22 which it is anticipated condemnation will be required for easement acquisition. PROJECT SCHEDULE Present Feasibility Report September 7, 1982 Public Hearing October 5, 1982 Approve Plans and Specifications Oct./Nov., 1982 Open Bids Nov./Dec., 1982 Award Contract December, 1982 Construction Completion Summer, 1983 Assessment Hearing September, 1983 First Payment Due with Real Estate Taxes May, 1984 Page 6. 0786b 2( 0 0 WESCOTT TRUNK SANITARY SEWER COST ESTIMATE PROJECT 361 A. LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN LUMP SUM 1.4 MGD lift station @ $110,000.00/L.S. $110,000 850 Lin.ft. 12" DIP force main @ $22.00/lin.ft. 18,700 1 Each Air release manhole @ $1,500.00/each 1,500 LUMP SUM Clear and grub trees @ $4,000.00/L.S. 4,000 1 Each Connect 12" force main to existing MH @ $500.00/each 500 600 Ton Cl. 2 crushed limestone for access drive @ $7.00/ton 4,200 1.0 Acre Seed with topsoil and mulch @ $2,000.00/acre 2,000 Total $140,900 +5% Contingencies 7,050 $147,950 +27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. b Bond Interest 39i50 A. TOTAL LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN ............. $187,900 B. TRUNK SANITARY SEWER 100 Lin.ft. 18" Sanitary sewer, 0'-10' dp. in pl. @ $30.00/lin.ft. $ 3,000 530 Lin.ft. 18" Sanitary sewer, 10'-15' dp. in pl. @ $35.00/lin.ft. 18,550 800 Lin.ft. 18" Sanitary sewer, 15'-20' dp, in pl. @ $40.00/lin.ft. 32,000 850 Lin.ft. 18" Sanitary sewer, 20'-25' dp. in pl. @ $45.00/lin.ft. 38,250 410 Lin.ft. 18" Sanitary sewer, 25'-30' dp. in pl. @ $55.00/lin.ft. 22,550 330 Lin.ft. 18" Sanitary sewer, 30'-35' dp. in pl. @ $65.00/lin.ft. 21,450 120 Lin.ft. 18" Sanitary sewer, 35'-40' dp. in pl. @ $75.00/lin.ft. 9,000 120 Lin.ft. 18" Sanitary sewer, 40'-45' dp. in pl. @ $85.00/lin.ft. 10,200 0786b Page 7. ZZ B. TRUNK SANITARY SEWER, Contd. 190 Lin.ft. 18" Sanitary sewer, 45'-50' dp. in pl. @ $95.00/lin.ft. 100 Lin.ft. 15" Sanitary sewer, 10'-15' dp. in pl. @ $33.00/lin.ft. 160 Lin.ft. 15" Sanitary sewer, 15'-20' dp, in pl. @ $38.00/lin.ft. 300 Lin.ft. 15" Sanitary sewer, 20'-25' dp. in pl. @ $43.00/lin.ft. 660 Lin.ft. 15" Sanitary sewer, 25'-30' dp, in pl. @ $53.00/lin.ft. 290 Lin.ft. 15" Sanitary sewer, 30'-35' dp. in pl. @ $63.00/lin.ft. 220 Lin.ft. 15" Sanitary sewer, 35'-40' dp. in pl. @ $73.00/lin.ft. 220 Lin.ft. 15" Sanitary sewer, 40'-45' dp. in pl. @ $83.00/lin.ft. 18 Each Std. 4' dia. MH w/casting @ $900.00/each 260 Lin.ft. MH depth greater than 8' dp. @ $70.00/lin.ft. LUMP SUM Clear and grub trees @ $6,000.00/L.S. 3,000 Ton Rock stabilization @ $7.00/ton 2,000 Lin.ft. Hay bales for erosion control @ $3.00/lin.ft. 12 Acres Seed with topsoil and mulch @ $2,000.00/Ac. Total +5% Contingencies +27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. b Bond Interest B. TOTAL TRUNK SANITARY SEWER ....................... A. Lift Station and Force Main B. Trunk Sanitary Sewer TOTAL........................ 07866 page 8. 23 18,050 3,300 6,080 12,900 34,980 18,270 16,060 18,260 16,200 18,200 6,000 21,000 6,000 24.000 $374,300 18,720 $393,020 106.120 $499,140 $187,900 499,140 $687,040 0 Legal SECTION 14 NW 1/4 Parcel 010-28 Parcel 010-29 SW 1/4 Parcel 010-52 Parcel 030-53 Parcel 041-53 Parcel 043-53 Parcel 044-53 APPENDIX B WESCOTT TRUNK SANITARY SEWER PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT 361 Trunk Area Assessable Assessable Sanitary Sewer Area Footage Rate Amount (1) 3.8 Ac. (1) 27.4 Ac. (1) 40.0 Ac. (1) 4.0 Ac. (1) 4.0 Ac. (1) 2.8 Ac. (1) 5.6 Ac. (1) Parcel 50-53 4.0 WILLIAMS 6 LARUE ADDITION Lot 1, Blk. 1 Lot 2, Blk. 2 Lot 3, Blk. 3 Lot 4, Blk. 4 $995/ac $995/ac $995/ac. $995/ac. $995/ac. $995/ac. $995/ac. $995/ac. $475/lot $475/lot $475/lot $475/lot $ 3,781.00 27,263.00 39,800.00 3,980.00 3,980.00 2,786.00 5,572.00 3,980.00 $ 475.00 475.00 475.00 475.00 TOTAL SECTION 14 ........... $ 93,042.00 (1) 20% of total area deducted for future streets. B-1 0786b Lateral Benefit Trunk San. sewer Rate Amount Total $ 3,781.00 27,263.00 39,800.00 3,980.00 3,980.00 2,786.00 5,572.00 3,980.00 $ 475.00 475.00 475.00 475.00 0 - $ 93,042.00 n U • Legal SECTION 15 SE 174— Parcel 4Parcel 010-76 APPENDIX B WESCOTT TRUNK SANITARY SEWER PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT 361 Trunk Area Assessable Assessable Sanitary Sewer Area Footage Rate Amount (1) 46.5 Ac. ST. FRANCIS WOOD ADDITION (1) Outlot A 24.05 Ac. Outlot B 2.35 Ac. Outlot C 2.66 Ac. TOTAL SECTION 15 .... SECTION 22 $995/ac $995/ac. $995/ac. $995/ac. NE 1/4 Parcel 011-01 47.18 Ac) 1420 L.F. $995/ac. Parcel 012-01 4.02 Ac) $995/ac. Parcel 010-02 3.08 Ac. $995/ac. (1) Parcel 011-04 56.0 Ac. 1465 L.F. $995/ac. NW 1/4 Parcel 011-25 (Windcrest Addn.) 940 L.F. (1) 20% of total area deducted for future streets. B-2 0786b $ 46,267.50 $ 23,929.75 2,338.25 2,646.70 $ 75,182.20 Lateral Benefit Trunk San. sewer Rate Amount Total $ 46,267.50 • $ 23,929.75 2,338.25 2,646.70 - 0 - $ 75,182.20 $ 46,944.10 $32/L.F. $ 45,440.00 $ 92,384.10 3,999.90 3,999.90 3,064.60 3,064.60 55,720.00 $32/L.F. 46,880.00 102,600.00 $32/L.F. 30,080.00 $ 30,080.00 SECTION 22, Continued .... Trunk Area Assessable Assessable Sanitary Sewer Legal Area Footage Rate Amount SE 1/4 Parcel 011-85 Parcel 011-86 SW/1/4 Parcel 014.54 Parcel 015-54 Parcel 016-54 Parcel 040-51 Parcel 050-51 Parcel 060-51 SECTION 23 NW 1/4 (1) 3.64 Ac. $995/ac. $ 3,621.80 (1) 4.36 Ac. $995/ac. 4,338.20 Lateral Benefit Trunk San. sewer Rate Amount Total $ 3,621.80 4,338.20 Ac. is 3.71 $995/ac. $ 3,691.45 3,691.45 (1) 3.08 Ac. $995/ac. 3,064.60 3,064.60 (1) 3.08 Ac. $995/ac. 3,064.60 3,064.60 (1) 2.93 Ac. $995/ac. 2,915.35 2,915.35 (1) 4.0 Ac. $995/ac. 3,980.00 3,980.00 (1) 0.3 Ac. $995/ac. 298.50 298.50 TOTAL SECTION 22 ............. $134,703.10 $122,400.00 $257,103.10 Parcel 012-25 40.5 Ac. $995/ac.$ 40,297.50 Parcel 013-25 17.03 Ac� $995/ac. 16,944.85 (1) (1) 20% of total area deducted for future streets. B-3 -.. 0786b $ 40,297.50 16,944.85 • SECTION 23. Continued (1) 20% of total area deducted for future streets. B-4 • • Trunk Area Lateral Benefit Assessable Assessable Sanitary Sewer Trunk San. sewer Legal Area Footage Rate Amount Rate Amount Total Parcel 014-25 4.4 Ac. $995/ac. 4,378.00 4,378.00 (1) Parcel 011-26 24.0 Ac. $995/ac. 23,880.00 23,880.00 (1) Parcel 010-27 27.37 Ac. $995/ac. 27,233.15 27,233.15 (1) Parcel 010-28 2.60 Ac. $995/ac. 2,587.00 2,587.00 SW 1/4 Parcel 010-50 0.84 Ac. $995/ac. 835.80 835.80 Parcel 010-51 29.65 Ac. $995/ac. 29,501.75 29,501.75 Parcel 020-50 0.84 Ac. $995/ac. 835.80 835.80 TOTAL SECTION 23 ............... $146,493.85 - 0 - $146,493.85 SECTION 14 $ 93,042.00 SECTION 15 75,182.20 SECTION 22 257,103.10 SECTION 23 146,493.85 TOTAL .............. $571,821.15 (1) 20% of total area deducted for future streets. B-4 • • WESCOTT TRUNK SANITARY SEWER PROJECT 361 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 1982 LATERAL SERVICE TRUNK SANITARY SEWER ___=_= Lineal Foot AssTt. ------ Front Foot Assm't. PO �0 N oq 00 OPOSF < 6 TAT1 Pond J -S Ex 15"RCP —�1 Pamel 010-76 IG— �� Pi0alin4 i i ll 04 \I 0 IOnd JP -la I I ROMESTROQ IIOSEW A110E> A A ASSOC. SIL' comLrm`OI. ms P -AI FILEv0 49256 JJLY. 1982 O\\ -0\ Pale\ ��SCprl �p4p I5° RCP r1 U I r Nol VDrLk alNi . . , 0 L \.,/; I ADOITpM CARRIAGE HILLS GOLF COURSE T VA PATRICK EAGAN PARK HILLS m 9�* ----------- fifill WEST PUBLISH Ist ADD WESCOTT TRUNK SANITARY SEWER PROJECT 361 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 1982 TRUNK AREA SANITARY SEWER OVERSIZE 801113TRIM NSEIN, AWME A ASSOC, ML cm'VATM giman IL Pok w...b FILE NO 39256 0 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Ten PROJECT #364 C. Project #364, Brittany Fourth Addtion - Trunk Water Main -- On July 20, in response to a petition received from the developer of this addition, the City Council authorized staff to prepare a feasibility report to provide trunk water main through the pro- posed Brittany Fourth Addition. This report was completed and presented to the Council on September 7, with the public hearing being scheduled for October 5. The feasibility report has been reviewed with the developer and no objections are anticipated as this developer is the only one impacted by this proposed project. Enclosed on pages 31 through 4( is a copy of the feasibility report for this project. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing and approve or deny Project #364 for the installation of trunk water main to the Brittany Fourth Addition. 30 0 0 REPORT ON BRITTANY 4th ADDITION TRUNK WATER MAIN PROJECT No. 364 FOR EAG^ MINNESOTA 1982 FILE No. 49262 Bam" w, /lose, vlac&4 h a r uac4244, 9mm e,q eagimmu Zt parr/, M&06"& 31 0 2335 V. %..r .40,b, 36 SF. P.J. M....6 55113 PA.,. 612-636-0600 September 14, 1982 Honorable Mayor and Council City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Mn. 55122 Re: Brittany 4th Addition Trunk Water Main Project 364 Our File No. 49262 Dear Mayor and Council: is Ono G. Row .. P.E Ruben W. Rmene. P.E. JPUPh C. AM H k, P.E. RmdJord A. Lembne. P.E. RkhmNE. lumen. P.E. J.. C. of... P.E. Gb R. Coat. P.F. Reilh A. Gwdon. P.E. n". E. Hoyn. P.E. Rkh. W. Fm. P.E. Robw G. Seha.im,. P.E. Af# tM L. Swrak, P.E. D..M C. Raresedl, P.E. Jerry A. 8.urdun, P E. Mart A. Hon,on, P.E. TN R. Field, P. E. Mlrheel T. R.mmmnn. P.E. Moban R. Pjr fln , 1•.1:. Ch.nm A. Er k. lm M. ftw r H.r . M. Goon Transmitted herewith is our report for Brittany 4th Addition, Project 364. This report covers trunk water main for Brittany 4th Addition. We will be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a mutually convenient time to discuss this report. Yours very truly, BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Mar A. Hanson MAH:li I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the Ptate of Minna ta. Mark A. Hanson �Date: September 14, 1982 Reg. No. 14260 Approved by: omaolbert, P.E. Director of Public Works Date: %-' 1698b 3.2, 0 0 BRITTANY 4TH ADDITION TRUNK WATER MAIN SCOPE: This project provides for construction of trunk water main within Brittany 4th Addition. Brittany 4th Addition is located adjacent to Johnny Cake Ridge Road at Sherwood Way. The proposed plat consists of 18 single fam- ily residential lots. Brittany 4th Addition is Outlot A within Brittany 1st Addition. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS• This project is feasible and is in accor- dance with the Master Utility Plans for the City of Eagan. The project as outlined herein, can best be carried out as one contract. This report assumes all grading will be done by the developer. DISCUSSION• Water Main: This project provides for construction of a 16 inch trunk water main within Shevlin Court. The 16 inch warur mn;,. ;ii 16 inch plug located at Sherwood Way and an existing 16 inch plug located at the south property line of Johnny Cake Ridge Addition. Also included is con- struction of required hydrants to provide proper fire protection and_individu- al water services to each lot. Sanitary sewer laterals and services will be constructed by the developer with a connection to an existing 24 inch trunk sanitary sewer located within Shelvin Court. AREA TO BE INCLUDED: Assessment Area Construction Area Brittany 1st Addition - Outlot A Brittany 1st Addition - Outlot A Page 1. 1698b 33 0 0 COST ESTIMATE: Detailed cost estimates are presented at the back of this re- port in Appendix A. The total estimated project cost is $52,640 which in- cludes contingencies and all related overhead. Overhead costs are estimated at 27% and include legal, engineering, administration, and bond interest. EASEMENTS: A permanent easement 20 feet wide will be required along Lots 8 and 9. It is assumed as part of this report this easement will be acquired as part of the final plat at no cost. ASSESSMENTS: Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited property. A preliminary assessment roll is included at the back of this re- port in Appendix B. It is proposed to assess lateral benefit from trunk water main at the 1982 rate. It is determined that the entire length of this trunk water main will serve this entire proposed subdivision and provide lateral benefit for water supply, quality and fire protection to each lot equally. Therefore, the cal- culated lateral benefit from trunk water main will be spread equally over all lots. Water service construction will be assessed equally to each lot which will include service lines constructed 15 feet beyond the property line, including corporation stop, and curb box. As previously mentioned, trunk sanitary sewer does exist within Shevlin Court. However, because of the excessive depth of this trunk sewer, the de- veloper proposes to construct an 8" lateral sewer line within Shevlin Court and provide a single connection to the trunk line in lieu of several individu- al services. Therefore, the lateral benefit from trunk sewer is calculated by Page 2. 1698b 3-1- 0 0 taking the lineal footage of existing trunk sanitary sewer from the center of Sherwood Way to the first existing manhole located to the north in Shevlin Court which the developer proposes to make his connection. It is proposed to assess this cost equally over each lot. The lateral benefit calculation and rate for trunk water main and trunk sanitary sewer along with the estimated cost for water services are listed below: Water Main Lateral Benefit from Trunk Water Services Sanitary Sewer 1,316 Assessable Ft. @ $15.00/F.F. $19,740 18 Lots @ $651/lot $11,710 Lateral Benefit from Trunk 150 Assessable Ft. @ $16.00/F.F. $ 2,400 REVENUE SOURCES: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this project are pre- sented below: WATER MAIN r Trunk Water Main Service Lateral Benefit Trunk Service Assessment Project Cost $40,930.00 11,710.00 TOTAL ................. $52,640.00 SANITARY SEWER Lateral Benefit Trunk Revenue $19,740.00 11,710.00 $31,450.00 Project Cost Revenue - 0 - $ 2,400.00 Balance -$21,190.00 Balance TOTAL - 0 - $ 2,400.00 +$ 2,400.00 TOTAL...............................................-$ 18,790.00 Page 3. 1698b 35 0 0 It is estimated $18,790.00 is required from the City Trunk Fund to finance this project. PROJECT SCHEDULE Present Feasibility Report September 21, 1982 Public Hearing October 5, 1982 Approve Plans and Specifications October 5, 1982 Open Bid October 27, 1982 Award Contract November 2, 1982 Construction Completion December, 1982 Assessment Hearing Spring, 1983 First Payment Due with Real Estate Taxes May, 1984 I 1698b Page 4. 36 0 0 APPENDIX A BRITTANY 4TH ADDITION TRUNK WATER MAIN COST ESTIMATE PROJECT 364 A.) TRUNK WATER MAIN 700 Lin.ft. 16" D.I.P. Water main @ $30.00/lin.ft. $21,000 30 Lin.ft. 6" D.I.P. Water main @ $12.00/lin.ft, l 360 2 Each Hydrant in place @ $800.00/each 1,600 2 Each 6" Resilient wedge gate valve and box @ $350.00/each 700 3,500 Lbs. Fittings in pl. @ $1.00/lb. 3,500 2 Each Connect 16" D.I.P. to existing plug @ $400.00/each 800 1.0 Acre Seed w/topsoil and mulch @ $4,000.00/ac. 2,000 730 Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft. 730 Total $30,690 +5% Contingency 1,540 $32,230 +27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. S Bond Interest 8,700 TOTAL TRUNK WATER MAIN ............................ $40,930 1698b Page 5. 37 0 B.) SERVICES 860 Lin.ft. 1" Water service line @ $7.00/lin.ft. $ 6,020 18 Each 1" Corporation stop in place @ $30.00/each 540 18 Each 1" Curb stop box in place @ $75.00/each 1,350 860 Lin.ft. Mechanical Trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft. 860 Total $ 8,770 +5% Contingencies 440 1698b + $ 9,210 +27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. 6 Bond Interest 2,500 TOTAL SERVICES ............................. $11,710 A. Trunk Water Main $40,930 B. Services 11 710 TOTAL .. $52,640 Page 6. 01 APPENDIX B BRITTANY 4TH ADDITION TRUNK WATER MAIN PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL A.) LATERAL BENEFIT TRUNK WATER MAIN Legal Rate Assessable Footage Total Amt. Brittany 4th Addition $15.00/F.F. 1,316' $19,740 Lots 1-18, Blk. 1 Cost/Lot = $19,740/18 Lots = $1,097/Lot B.) SERVICES Brittany 4th Addition Lots 1-18, Blk. 1 Cost/Lot = $11,710/18 Lots = $651/Lot ,C.) LATERAL BENEFIT TRUNK SANITARY SEWER Brittany 4th Addition Lots 1-18, Blk. 1 Cost/Lot = $2,400/18 Lots = $134/Lot 1698b Page 7. 39 0 I / ar ml wI PROPO i WATER / 12 rw \\ 11 BRITTANY 4th 'ADDITION TRUNK WATER MAIN 0 SCALE: I" = 200' PROJECT No. 364 EAGAN, MINNESOTA BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK & ASSOC, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS FILE No. 49262 St. Paul, Minnesota - Q • p 9 10 B /11 n 7 "( 12 W i 6 13 I 0 ✓I 5 I 14 4 15 I (I 3 W 16 x 2 I 17 0I � 1 IB - I j�A \ Z SHE x ` JI \ 2y„ 1 0 LATERAL BENEFIT FROM TRUNK SANITARY SEWER LATERAL BENEFIT FROM TRUNK WATER MAIN O SCALE: 1" = 200' BRITTANY 4th ADDITION ASSESSMENT AREA PROJECT No. 364 EAGAN, MINNESOTA BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 3 ASSOC., INC. CONSULTIK ENCRtEERSQ FILE No. 49262 St. Paul, Mimesoa !"L 9 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Eleven PROJECT #365 D. Project #365, Northview Meadows First Addition - Trunk Sewer & Water -- On July 20, a petition was submitted by Lexington South Associates subsequent to preliminary plat approval of Northview Meadows Addition requesting the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water to service this proposed future subdivision. In response to this petition, the Council directed staff to prepare a feasi- bility report which was completed and presented to the Council on September 7, with the public hearing being scheduled for October 5. On September 30, an informational meeting was held at the City Hall for all affected property owners to explain the details of the project and the proposed assessments associated with it. There were 14 people present representing 7 properties affected by this project. A major point of consideration under this project is staff's recommendation for the extension of the trunk water main along County Road 30 to connect to the existing trunk on Dodd Road. This extension affects a majority of the existing residents along County Road 30. However, it is necessary to provide a looped connection for the trunk water main through the high pressure zone to provide proper service, fire protection and water pressure. Bob Rosene, the consulting, engineer, will be available to discuss the details of this project at the public hearing. A copy of the feasibility report is enclosed on pages 4.1 through .S 7 for your review. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing and approve or deny Project #365 for the installation of trunk water main and sanitary sewer to service to Northview Meadows First Addition. _-a 0 0 REPORT ,m NORTHVIEW TRUNK SEWER PROJECT MEADOWS AND WATER No. 365 FOR EAGAN , MINNESOTA 1982 FILE No. 49261 Bmedtaoo, Kadeste, rqKj�_vli a a 4m"iat"r Disc. Ca..d"afty ea9im"" 94 Pawl, M&ww"& OWN 0 IJ 2335 V %..a #.VA. 36 SP. P.J. Af--.& 55„3 PA...: 6f2-636-4600 August 31, 1982 Honorable Mayor and Council City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Mn. 55122 Re: Northview Meadows 1st Addition Trunk Sewer and Water Project 365 Our File No. 49261 Dear Mayor and Council: Orl. G. Panesrrau, P.E. ft M" W. Rrnene. P.E. Jmeph C Anderlik. P.E. Rrmrynrd A. Lem". P.E Rreh.nl E. 7emer. P.E. James C W.en, P.E. Gknw R. rank. P.E. Rnlh A. Gurdon. pt. Thum.. E. N..r., P.P.. Rkhurd W. Fn m, P.E. R.hen G. .SrhunrchL P.E. Marvin L..Srvrvls. P.L. D.na/d C. Rur,,di. PL'. Jerry A. Bourdon. Y.F.. Mer* A. /lumen. P.E. Ted F. Field. P.E. Mkhael 1: Ramm.nn. P.L. Clmrk+A. &,rk.nn L. M. Pvr rhk. Nadu. .N. Wton D..ul E Oh.. Transmitted herewith is our report for Northview Meadows 1st Addition, Project 365. This report covers trunk sanitary sewer and water for Northview Meadows 1st Addition. We will be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a mutually convenient time to discuss this report. Yours very truly, BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. P J Mark A. Hanson MAH:li I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the.State of MinnesOpa. Mark A. Hanson Date: August 31, 1982 Reg. No. 14260 Approved by:Lee— Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. f' Director of Public Works 1475b Date: %- / I"e 0 0 NORTHVIEW MEADOWS TRUNK SEWER AND WATER SCOPE: This project provides for construction of sub -trunk sanitary sewer and trunk water main to service Northview Meadows Phase I. Northview Meadows is located on the south side of County Road No. 30 midway between Lexington Ave- nue and Dodd Road. Northview Meadows will ultimately consist of 156 single family residential units on approximately 70 acres. Proposed Phase I includes 68 units to be developed at this time with the remaining units being developed at a future date. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This project is feasible and is in accor- dance with the Master Utility Plan for sanitary sewer and water main for the City of Eagan. The project as outlined herein, can best be carried out as one contract. No grading will be required by the developer for the installation of trunk utilities proposed herein. DISCUSSION: Sanitary Sewer: It is proposed to extend a 10 inch sanitary sewer from the existing 30 inch trunk sanitary sewer located in Wilderness Run Road. The sanitary sewer will extend to the north within future Wescott Hills Drive right-of-way to the north line of Northview Meadows as it abuts Wescott Hills Drive. The sanitary sewer is considered a sub -trunk to provide service to the NE 1/4 of Section 26. Also included are sanitary sewer stubs to service future streets in Northview Meadows and the future development of the property west of Wescott Hills Drive. Page 1. 1475b 45 0 0 Water Main: It is proposed to construct trunk water main within County Road No. 30 to service Northview Meadows. Northview Meadows is included within the high pressure zone and will be serviced by the existing trunk water main lo- cated in Lexington Avenue and County Road No. 30. It is, therefore, necessary to extend the existing 20 inch trunk water main in County Road No. 30 at Northview School east to service Northview Meadows. It is recommended, due to the minimal length of water main required in relation to the benefit received, to extend the proposed 20 inch water main from Northview Meadows to Dodd Road and connect to an existing 16 inch water main which was installed in 1980 un- der Project 241. This connection will not only provide an alternate feed for this area but also provide a connection for proper circulation and looping of trunk facilities for the high pressure zone in the southeast corner of the City. It is proposed to extend hydrants to the north side of County Road No. 30 adjacent to existing homes for availability of water and providing proper fire protection. Construction of water services is also included as required. AREA TO BE INCLUDED ASSESSMENT AREA Section 23, SE 1/4 Parcel 010-75 Parcel 010-76 Parcel 010-77 Parcel 010-78 Parcel 010-79 CONSTRUCTION AREA Section 25. NW 1/4 Parcel 011-26 Parcel 020-26 Parcel 030-26 Parcel 040-26 Parcel 050-26 Page 2. 1475b 4G 0 0 Deer Addition Section 26, NE 1/4 Lot 1, Blk. 1 Parcel 010-02 (Future Northview Meadows) Section 24, SW 1/4 Parcel 010-02 Parcel 010-54 Parcel 010-03 Parcel 010-55 Parcel 010-05 Parcel 011-56 Section 26, SE 1/4 Parcel 011-58 Parcel 010-75 Parcel 012-58 Parcel 020-58 Section 25, NW 1/4 Parcel 011-26 Parcel 020-26 Parcel 030-26 Parcel 040-26 Parcel 050-26 Section 26, NE 1/4 Parcel 010-01 (Future Northview Meadows) Parcel 010-02 Parcel 010-03 Parcel 010-05 COST ESTIMATE: Detailed cost estimates are presented at the back of this re- port in Appendix A. These costs are summarized as follows: A. Sanitary Sewer (Wescott Hills Drive) $139,980 B. Trunk Water Main (C.S.A.H. No. 30) 291,670 TOTAL ...................... $431,650 The total project cost is $431,650 which includes contingencies and all related overhead. Overhead costs are estimated at 27% and include legal, en- gineering; administration, and bond interest. - EASEMENTS: A permanent easement 80 feet wide will be required for Wescott Hills Drive. It is assumed as part of this report, right-of-way will be ac- quired with final platting of Northview Meadows at no costs. Page 3. 1475b 47 0 0 Easement acquisition will be acquired for construction of trunk water main along County Road No. 30 to Dodd Road. An additional 17 feet of right-of-way will be required thus providing 50 feet of half right-of-way for County Road No. 30. Parcels affected due to easement acquisition and their estimated cost are listed below. Easement costs are estimated at $5,000/acre. Parcel Area Section 25, NW 1/4 Parcel 011-26 0.07 Acres Parcel 020-26 0.23 Acres Parcel 030-26 0.26 Acres Parcel 040-26 0.17 Acres Parcel 050-26 0.09 Acres Section 26, NE 1/4 Parcel 010-01 (Future North - view Meadows) 0.57 Acres Parcel 010-02 0.20 Acres Parcel 010-03 0.26 Acres TOTAL...................... Estimated Cost $ 350 1,150 1,300 850 450 No Cost $1,000 1,300 $6,400 ASSESSMENTS: Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited property. A preliminary assessment roll is included at the back of this re- port in Appendix B. Assessments for sanitary sewer are proposed to be assessed against the abutting property. Trunk costs are assumed to be the additional cost of 10 inch pipe versus 8 inch pipe with no consideration given to depth. It is pro- posed to assess 1/3 of the total lateral sanitary sewer cost to Northview Meadows. The remaining 2/3 will be assessed to parcel 010-05 included in the NE 1/4 Section 26. Page 4. 1475b Im 0 Assessments for trunk water main on County Road No. 30 are proposed to be assessed through trunk area charges and lateral benefit from trunk water main. The assessment area for trunk and lateral benefit from trunk are shown on the attached drawing at the back of this report. It is proposed to assess only 50% of the total front footage at the lateral benefit rate from trunk to parcels which are anticipated being subdivided in the future. Parcels which will not be subdivided will be assessed 100% of their total front footage. Services will be assessed to the property it serves. Assessment rates presented herein are listed below. Latral benefit for sanitary sewer will be revised based on final costs and will be 100% of the cost for an 8 inch sanitary sewer. Trunk area and lateral benefit from trunk for water will be in accordance with predetermined rates in effect at the time of the public hearing. Sanitary Sewer - Lateral Benefit $36.83/F.F. Water - Lateral benefit from Trunk - Residential/ Agriculture $15.00/F.F. - Comm./Ind. $18.00/F.F. Trunk Area - Residential/Agriculture $995/Acre - Commercial/Industrial $995/Acre REVENUE SOURCES: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this project are pre- sented below: Sanitary Sewer (Wescott Hills Drive) Project Cost Revenue Balance Lateral $131,490 Trunk 8,490 Lateral Assessment $131,490 $139,980 $131,490 -$8,490 Page 5. 1475b 0 0 Water Main (C.S.A.H. No. 30) Project Cost Revenue Balance Trunk $291,670 Trunk Area Assessment $108,731 Lateral Benefit from Trunk Assmt. 87,777 $291,670 $196,508 —$95,162 It is estimated approximately $103,652 is required from the City Trunk Fund to finance this project. PROJECT SCHEDULE Present Feasibility Report Public Hearing Approve Plans and Specifications Open Bids Award Contract Construction Completion Assessment Hearing First Payment Due with Real Estate Taxes Page 6. 1475b so September 7, 1982 October 5, 1982 Oct./Nov., 1982 Nov./Dec., 1982 December, 1982 Summer, 1983 September, 1983 May, 1984 0 0 APPENDIX A NORTHVIEW MEADOWS TRUNK SEWER AND WATER COST ESTIMATE PROJECT 365 A. SANITARY SEWER (WESCOTT HILLS DRIVE) 300 Lin.ft. 10" PVC San. sewer, 10'-15' dp. in pl. @ $15.00/lin.ft. $ 4,500 50 Lin.ft. 10" PVC San. sewer, 15'-20' dp. in pl. @ $18.00/lin.ft. 900 460 Lin.ft. 10" PVC San. sewer, 20'-25' dp. in pl. @ $24.00/lin.ft. 11,040 250 Lin.ft. 10" PVC San. sewer, 25'-30' dp. in pl. @ $30.00/lin.ft. 7,500 450 Lin.ft. 10" PVC San. sewer, 30'-35' dp. in pl. @ $35.00/lin.ft. 15,750 640 Lin.ft. 10" PVC San. sewer, 35'-40' dp. in pl. @ $50.00/lin.ft. 32,000 290 Lin.ft. 8" PVC San. sewer, 10'-15' dp. in pl. @ $12.00/lin.ft. 3,480 9 Each Std. 4' dia. MH w/cstg. @ $800.00/each .7,200 160 Lin.ft. MH depth greater than 8' dp. @ $60.00/lin.ft. 9,600 1 Each Connect 10" PVC to existing MH @ $250.00/each 250 15 Ton Bituminous mixture for patching @ $100.00/ton 1,500 200 Ton Rock stabilization below pipe @ $6.00/ton 1,200 2.0 Acres Seed w/topsoil and mulch @ $2,000.00/ac. 4,000 LUMP SUM Clear and grub trees @ $3,000.00/L.S. 3,000 2,410 Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft. 2,410 160 Lin.ft. Hay bales for erosion control @ $4.00/lin.ft. 640 Total $104,970 +5% Contingency 5,250 $110,220 +27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. S Bond Interest 29,760 A. TOTAL SANITARY SEWER ............................... $139,980 Page 7. 1475b S/ 0 0 B. TRUNK WATER MAIN (C.S.A.H. No. 30) 4,800 Lin.ft. 20" DIP Water main @ $32.00/1in.ft. $153,600 660 Lin.ft. 6" DIP Water main @ $12.00/lin.ft. 7,920 10 Each Hydrant in pl. @ $800.00/each 8,000 2 Each 20" Butterfly valve 6 box @ $2,500.00/each 5,000 10 Each 6" Resilient wedge gate valve b box @ $350.00/each 3,500 20,000 Lbs. Fittings in pl. @ $1.00/lb. 20,000 1 Each Connect 20" DIP to existing 20" plug @ $500.00/each 500 1 Each Connect 16" DIP to existing 16" plug @ $500.00/each 500 LUMP SUM Clear and grub trees @ $2,000.00/L.S. 2,000 900 Ton Class 5 aggregate base for shouldering @ $5.00/ton 4,500 6.0 Acres Seed w/topsoil @ $2,000.00/ac. 12,000 150 Lin.ft. 1" Type K copper in pl. @ $5.00/lin.ft. 750 5 Each 1" Corporation stop in pl. @ $30.00/each 150 5 Each 1" Curb stop and box in pl. @ $60.00/each 300 $218,720 +5% Contingency 10,940 $229,660 +27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. b Bond Interest 62,010 B. TOTAL TRUNK WATER MAIN ............................. $291,670 Page 8. 1475b S'�' Assessable Assessable Legal Area Footage SECTION 23 SE 1/4 Lateral Benefit Sewer Water Main (2) Parcel 010-75 30.4 Acs. Parcel 010-76 1.0 Ac. $995/Ac. 995.00 $15/FF Parcel 010-77 15.6 Acs (1) (2) Parcel 010-78 14.5 Acs. W Parcel 010-79 0.6 Ac. DEER ADDITION (1) Lot 1, Blk. 1 1 Lot SECTION 24 SW 1/4 $995/Ac. 14,427.50 $15/FF (2) Parcel 010-54 24 Ace. $995/Ac. 597.00 $15/FF 300.00 Parcel 010-55 3.8 Acs. $ 475.00 $15/FF 1,200.00 $ 1,675.00 Parcel 011-56 7.6 Acs. $ 23,880.00 • (2) Parcel 011-58 6.5 Ace. (2) APPENDIX B NORTHVIEW MEADOWS TRUNK SEWER AND WATER PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT 365 Lateral Sanitary Trunk Area Lateral Benefit Sewer Water Main Trunk Water Main 517.5 Rate Amt. Rate Amt. Rate Amt. Total 330 Parcel 012-58 3.8 Ace. 330 Parcel 020-58 1.0 Ac. (1) 50% of total front footage based on future subdividing. (2) 20% of total area deducted for future streets. Page 9. $995/Ac. 6,467.00 $15/FF 4,950.00 $995/Ac. 3,781.00 $15/FF 4,950.00 $995/Ac. 995.00 11,417.00 8,731.00 995.00 (1) 517.5 FF $995/Ac. $30,248.00 $15/FF $ 7,762.50 $ 38,010.50 285 $995/Ac. 995.00 $15/FF 4,275.00 5,270.00 (1) 330 $995/Ac, 15,522.00 $15/FF 4,950.00 20,472.00 (1) 280 $995/Ac. 14,427.50 $15/FF 4,200.00 18,627.50 20 $995/Ac. 597.00 $15/FF 300.00 897.00 80 $475/Lot $ 475.00 $15/FF 1,200.00 $ 1,675.00 $995/Ac. $23,880.00 $ 23,880.00 • 330 $995/Ac. 3,781.00 $15/FF $ 4,950.00 8,731.00 (1) 330 $995/Ac. 7,562.00 $15/FF 4,950.00 12,512,00 (1) 330 Parcel 012-58 3.8 Ace. 330 Parcel 020-58 1.0 Ac. (1) 50% of total front footage based on future subdividing. (2) 20% of total area deducted for future streets. Page 9. $995/Ac. 6,467.00 $15/FF 4,950.00 $995/Ac. 3,781.00 $15/FF 4,950.00 $995/Ac. 995.00 11,417.00 8,731.00 995.00 APPENDIX B NORTHVIEW MEADOWS TRUNK SEWER AND WATER PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT 365 S.S. - Sanitary Sewer W.M. - Water Main (1) 50% of total front footage based on future subdividing. (2) 20% of total area deducted for future streets. Trunk Area Lateral Benefit Water Main Trunk Water Main • Rate Amt. Rate Amt. Total Page 10. $15/FF $ 2,700.00 $ 2,700.00 $15/FF 4,425.00 4,425.00 $15/FF Lateral Sanitary $15/FF Assessable Assessable $15/FF Sewer Legal Area Footage Rate Amt. SECTION 25 NW 1/4 4,590.00 Parcel 011-26 180 --- --- 87,660.00 $108,730.50 $82,822.00 $323,047.50 (1) Parcel 020-26 295 (1) Parcel 030-26 331.9 (1) Parcel 040-26 219.4 Parcel 050-26 226 SECTION 26 NE 1/4 Parcel 010-01 (Future S.S. 1190'(1) Northview Meadows) W.M. 735' $36.83/FF $43,830 (1) Parcel 010-02 W.M. 255' Parcel 010-03 W.M. 330' Parcel 010-05 S.S. 2380' $36.83/FF 87,660 TOTAL ............... $131,490 S.S. - Sanitary Sewer W.M. - Water Main (1) 50% of total front footage based on future subdividing. (2) 20% of total area deducted for future streets. Trunk Area Lateral Benefit Water Main Trunk Water Main • Rate Amt. Rate Amt. Total Page 10. $15/FF $ 2,700.00 $ 2,700.00 $15/FF 4,425.00 4,425.00 $15/FF 4,978.50 4,978.50 $15/FF 3,291.00 3,291.00 $15/FF 3,390.00 3,390.00 $15/FF $11,025.00 $ 54,855.00 $18/FF 4,590.00 4,590.00 $18/FF 5,940.00 5,940.000 --- --- 87,660.00 $108,730.50 $82,822.00 $323,047.50 010-75 / 010-75 (—E., SAN SEWER VES F Scott it.. Feel 2 C 100 201 300 40C i — w n w O I O M1 I 010-05 PA 010-05 ASSESSMEN7S LATERAL BENEFIT (2/3 of COST) LATERAL BENEFIT ( V3 of COST) i Y. SEWER a i fPRA rr` of ; to I I I 1 \5 U s NORTHVIEW MEADOWS SANITARY SEWER PROJECT No. 365 49261 m J SCHOOL 010-76 gEE PR OPOSE 1 WATER a. 20 WATERMAIN , 7 2, O I. rn � 010-03 t y O' U FUTURE e' co �\ p WATERMAIN 010-55 0� I, =1 U .F; >:I4 050-26 040-26 Scale In Feet: 0 100 200 300 400 0 010-77 __ DIFFLEY ROAD 010-75 DID -76 -------� i,7 (Co. Rd. No. 30) W I U 1\ NO TN IEW' ,M AD WS Z. o 4 I 1 e oto -o2 TRAIL �" FUTURE WATERMAIN 011-56 012-56 071-58 a� iD c_o e NFFLEY ROAD ° --- / ¢1 Z PROPOSED 20'I c p " S WATERMAIN 01 . I OI C,!c 1 U EA.16' • WATERMAIN 030-26 020-26 O 1 7-28 ,I PROPOSED LATERAL BENEFIT FROM TRUNK (FRONT FOOT) .RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED LATERAL BENEFIT FROM TRUNK (FRONT FOOT) COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL 8 jjD � OTT y�C 9 9 LL SCALE IN FEET: 0 Soo 1000 2000 S7 WILDERNE ROAD RUN /Z rr\\ NORTHVIEW MEADOWS TRUNK AREA ASSESSMENT PROJECT NO. 365 49261 BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK & ASSM INC. -23 t:l X, OI I WI MC. S. A. H. 8 jjD � OTT y�C 9 9 LL SCALE IN FEET: 0 Soo 1000 2000 S7 WILDERNE ROAD RUN /Z rr\\ NORTHVIEW MEADOWS TRUNK AREA ASSESSMENT PROJECT NO. 365 49261 BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK & ASSM INC. X, 8 jjD � OTT y�C 9 9 LL SCALE IN FEET: 0 Soo 1000 2000 S7 WILDERNE ROAD RUN /Z rr\\ NORTHVIEW MEADOWS TRUNK AREA ASSESSMENT PROJECT NO. 365 49261 BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK & ASSM INC. 0 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Twelve CABLE TELEVISION RFP E. Cable Television RFP (Request for Proposals) -- The Joint Burns- ville/Eagan Cable Television Commission has been meeting for several months to discuss, study and review many aspects that relate to the future franchising of a cable company to provide cable tele- vision services to the Cities of Burnsville and Eagan. The Joint Commission, equally represented by both communities, at their last regular meeting held on Thursday, September 23, 1982, adopted the Request for Proposals that was prepared with the assistance of the consulting team led by Thomas Creighton. A copy of this docu- ment was sent out to each member of the City Council approximately a week ago for your review. The public hearing is to provide any .opportunity for public input on the Request for proposals for a cable communications system to jointly serve the Cities of Burns- ville and Eagan. Copies of the Request for Proposals are on file in the Eagan City Offices; however, to date, the City Administrator is unaware of any public review of the document. The City of Burns- ville is considering the recommendation of the Joint Commission and will be acting on the RFP at their regular City Council meeting on Monday, October 4, 1982, and the City Administrator is planning to provide a report to the City Council of their action. The appro- ximate time table for submitting RFP's by prospective bidders is December/January. City Councilmember Smith, the City Council's representative on the Joint Commission, and the City Administrator, an ex officio member of the Joint Commission, have continually provided an update to the City Council of different decisions studied and acted upon by the Joint Commission. If there is any additional information required, they will answer questions and present additional background material at the regular City Council meeting. A revised copy of the RFP was received from Tom Creighton Friday morning and this is enclosed on pages 6- through 92 for your review. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny, with or without any modifications, the RFP as recommended for approval by the Joint Burnsville/Eagan Cable Commission which authorizes the solicitation and advertisement for RFP's to provide a joint cable television service to the Cities of Burnsville and Eagan. M MOTION by Councilperson • CITY OF COUNTY OF SPATE OF MINNESOTA NO. to adopt the following: A RESOLUPICN ADOPTING A RDDUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR A CABLE CCMNUNiC MCN SYSTEM FOR THE CITY OF ,MlltESOTA. WHEREAS, the City of (City) has participated in the Burnsville/Eagan Cable Communications Commission (Commission); and WHEREAS, the Commission was delegated the responsibility to prepare and adopt and did prepare and adopt a Request for Proposals (RFP) and a prelimi- nary draft franchise ordinance for a cable communications system for the City, and; WHEREAS, the City is the franchising authority; and WHEREAS, Section 4.140 (D) (1) of the Official Rules of the Minnesota Cable Communications Board requires that the franchising authority shall adopt in a public hearing the Request for Proposals; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was published in the official newspaper of the City on the day of , 1982; and WHEREAS, members of the public have been afforded a reasonable oppor- tunity to be heard. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City as follows: 1. The City adopts the RFP and receives the preliminary draft of the franchise ordinance. 2. The RFP accompanied by a draft of the preliminary franchise shall be issued by the Commission on behalf of the City on or before October 6, 1982, and shall be on file in the Clerk's Office of the City. 3. The City hereby delegates to the Commission the responsibility to perform on behalf of the City all tasks incident to the issuance of the RFP as required by the Official Rules of the Minnesota Cable Communications Board. S? IA 4. The City hereby delegates to the Conmission the responsibility to perform on behalf of the City all tasks incident to the receipt and evaluation of any proposals received by the Commission, to culminate in the recannendation to the City by the Commission of a cable carpany and a final franchise ordinance to be considered by the City in its regular ordinance procedure. MCTICN seconded by Councilperson , and adopted by the City Council of the City at a Regular Meeting this day of _, 1982, by roll call vote as follows: ATTEST: Aye: Naye: CITY OF -2- ME Ci For the Cities of Burnsville and Eagan, Minnesota October 6, 1982 Prepared by: Thomas D. Creighton Stern, Levine, Schwartz, Lifson 5 Creighton, P.A. 5005 South Cedar Lake Road Minneapolis, MM 55416 Telephone: (612) 377-8620 With Assistance From: Ms. Anita Benda Stech Mr. Ralph Canpbell III Utilizing the Application Forms of: CPIC Associates 0 I. A. General Instructions E The purpose of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to seek qualified appli- cants to provide cable o nnunication service to the citizens of the cities of Burnsville and Eagan, Minnesota. Each city government of these two (2) com- munities has resolved that the development of a joint cable television system to serve their oamnunities is in their best interest and -,has authorized a joint powers commission known as the Burnsville/Eagan Cable Communications Commission (Commmission) to continue work to establish such a system. It is the intent of the city governments to grant the cable commmunications franchise to the same Grantee and to adopt identical cable camnunications ordi- nances except in the areas of unique ommumity construction standards. The Commission will recommend both the common Grantee and the final cable com- munications franchise ordinance to each city government for their adoption. Only applications proposing a common system to jointly serve the cities then members of the Commission will be accepted. This RFP contains information and instructions relating to the preparation and filing of proposals; conditions and provisions regarding the installation, operation and maintenance of the cable communications systems; and the procedure to be used in evaluating applicant proposals. B. Principles Embodied in the RFP The following have been prominent among the principles guiding the develop- ment of the present RFP: 1. The Commission looks to the cable industry not merely for the variety of entertainment it can provide, but for the contributions it can make to a total com unications network that opens to the 0 0 citizens and institutions of the area a maximLm of opportunities for access to information, the sharing of messages, increased security, the saving of energy, and other such economic and social benefits made passible by advancing ocmmunications technology. 2. The Commission believes that the cable industry's knowledge of the service potential of communications technology, combined with the present competitive franchising atmosphere, makes the industry a more likely choice than the Commission itself for describing in detail how the cable communications goals of its member cities can best be fulfilled. Thus, the Commission has spent its efforts in articulating principles, and stating general and minimum require- ments, relying on franchise applicants to spell out the specific means and the improvement on minimums that will 'bring about an optimal realization of the principles expressed by the Commission and its member cities. 3. The Commission and its member cities believe that while cable franchising is part of the cities' duly authorized political pro- cess, it is important to create a broad base of objectivity in the franchising effort, so that the political process has the means for producing a franchise award based upon the merits of the best pro- posal. Thus, pains have been taken to rely on knowledgeable con- sultants, to take advantage of the franchising experience of other cities, to keep all meetings of the Commission and the City Councils open, and to create a registration procedure for cable company representatives. 4. The Commission believes that the cities' cable system should not only employ current state-of-the-art technology, but should also be built with a maximum of flexibility for taking advantage of new 63 -2- 0 0 canmunications technology benefiting subscribers as such technology becomes available in the future. It is expected that the operator of the system franchised by this procedure will incorporate all new services as such services became technically feasible should the cities in their discretion determine they desire such services. 5. The Commission seeks to provide the highest quality cable service uniformly throughout both cities at the earliest possible date. Therefore, the present franchise will be granted for one system on a two city-wide basis, subject to certain restrictions of initial service described under the definition of initial ser- vice territories. The Camd.ssion and the member cities at their discretion may make use of any other legal and practical means available through existing ordinances and the regulatory authority to achieve the goal of system -vide subscriber service at the earliest possible date. C. Evaluation Schedule And Timetable October 6, 1982 Formal issuance of RFP. November 29, 1982 Deadline for receipt of proposers' formal requests for written clarification of proposals. December 8, 1982 Co mission response to formal requests for clarifi- cation. -3- G4 0 January 6, 1983 Proposals due. February, 1983 Perfunctory hearings regarding proposals before each city council. April, 1983 Consultant's preliminary report and questions to proposers from consultant and Commission. Council decision to follow. April, 1983 Companies' responses to Consultant and Commission questions to proposers. May, 1983 Final Consultant Report. May, 1983 Public hearing before Commission regarding proposals ("Dog and Pony Shows"). May, 1983 Commission selects Company and authorizes produc- tion of ordinance to be recommended to cities. Lobbyist Restrictions The following resolution has been adopted by the Commission regarding its procedures for the communication between representatives of cable oam- panies and Ccmmission directors and alternates. 1.The Commission believes that aside from discussions initiated by individual directors for the purpose of answering individual questions, all communication worthy of consideration by one director is worthy of communication to all directors at a regular sche- duled meeting of the Commission. 2. in the democratic free exchange of ideas, a lobbyist best serves the perspective he or she represents by the open expression of that perspective before the entire Commission so that all directors have the opportunity to subject that represented perspective to public scrutiny and questioning. 3. The Commission believes that in order to credit any input it receives from individuals who are not members of the -4- 6� 0 0 Commission, the supplier of that information must be iden- tified along with the identification of any vested interest, association, cable company or the like repre- sented by said lobbyist. 4. The Commission requires that all individuals sharing information with individual directors, alternates, staff or the Commission as a whole, identify themselves and any vested interest, association, cable company or the like which he or she represents. 5. To this end, and in furtherance of these policies and objectives, the Commission hereby establishes a Permanent Lobbyist Registration List to be compiled by the Secretary -Treasurer of the Commission and made a permanent addendum to the minutes of the Commission, thereby on file at the city offices of each member of this Commission. The Commission requests that any individual, association, cable company or the like who supplies or intends to supply information to the Commission or any part thereof report in writing to the Secretary Treasurer the name and affiliation of the person communicating with the Commission or part thereof. 6. To facilitate compliance with these procedures, it is the intention of this Commission, its directors, alternates, and staff, torp esmmme that a lobbyist communicating infor- mation regarding cable television who is not identified for the purpose of the Permanent Lobbyist Registration List as to name and affiliation is attempting to influence the open decision-making process of this Commission in a way which is inconsistent and in violation of the policies of this Commission. 7. These policies and procedures shall be oom unicated to member city councils for their information and adoption if such be their desire. Additionally, this policy shall be communicated to the Minnesota State Cable Communications Board, all individuals attending regularly scheduled meetings of this Commission, all interested cable com- panies, and any other interested individual, association, or governmental unit. -5- 65 0 A. Defraying of Franchise Expenses 0 There will be no tax dollars spent on acquiring a cable franchise. Therefore, all franchising expenses incurred by the Commission and its member cities shall be passed on to the successful proposer. An itemized list of expenses will be submitted to the company on award of franchise. These expenses are to be paid in full at the time the franchise is signed by the company. Expenses incurred in the analysis of the proposals will be recovered from the proposal fee of each proposer. On the date of the State certification of the franchise, another itemized list will be submitted to the successful proposer (Grantee) for expenses incurred by the Commission and its member cities to negotiate conditions of the franchise. The Grantee must agree to pay all reasonable expenses incurred by the City for monitoring construction of the system. Reimbursement for additional expenses will be made on a monthly basis. Reimbursement for incurred expenses will cease upon the payment of the first franchise fee. B. Filing Fee A filing fee of $10,000.00 in the form of a certified check payable to the Burnsville/Eagan Cable Comnunications Commission will accompany each proposer's proposal. The purpose of the filing fee is to offset expenses incurred by the 67 • � 0 cities and the Caimission in the analysis and evaluation of proposals. Refunds to individual proposers of the filing fee not used in the analysis and eva- luation of specific proposals may be made to unsuccessful proposers at the option of the Commission. The unused portion of the filing fee from the suc- cessful proposer will not be refunded but will be deducted from each city's other franchising expenses. C. Public Hearings Every effort has been made to comply with the rules and regulations of the Minnesota Cable Communications Board and to allow for public input into the franchising process. Therefore, public hearings will occur on various dates throughout the process. All proposers will be given reasonable notice of meetings and be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard regarding their pro- posals. D. Franchise Term The term of the franchise will be 15 years, subject to renewal terms of the preliminary draft franchise. E. Franchise Fee The Grantee shall agree to pay to the Commission an annual fee of 5% of all grass revenues derived from the cable system as defined in the preliminary franchise. The annual fee may be subject to renegotiation at such time as federal or state authorities no longer regulate the amount of the fee, but in no event shall the renegotiated fee be less than 5%. F. Rate Change Procedures The Grantee shall agree as a condition precedent to the contractual rela- tionship established by the franchise to rate change procedures as outlined in the preliminary franchise. Proposers are advised to review the information which will be required to be submitted in an application for a rate change, all of which are included in the draft preliminary franchise ordinance. G. Applicable Rules and Regulations Grantee shall comply with all laws, statutes, rules and regulations and judicial interpretations thereof, of the following: United States of America Federal Communications Camiission State of Minnesota Minnesota State Cable Communications Board County of Dakota Cities of Burnsville and Eagan, Minnesota H. Year One Year one begins on the date the MCCB issues the certificate of confirmation. I. Filing of Proposal 35 copies of each proposal shall be submitted (sealed) with the caption "Cable Communications Proposal" addressed to: Mr. Paul Wood, Chairman Burnsville/Eagan Cable Communications Commission City of Burnsville 1313 E. Highway Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 Telephone: (612) 890-4100 Proposals must be notarized (may be filed in person or by registered mail) and will be accepted at the Burnsville City Hall until 2:00 p.m. January 6, 1983, at which time all proposals will be opened. The Coamission reserves the right in its sole discretion to extend the deadline to all proposers, if necessary. At the time proposals are submitted, the $10,000.00 filing fee shall be submitted by certified check payable to the Commission. J. Form of Proposal NOLs All proposals must be on the official forms jointly provided herein by the Commission on behalf of its member cities. The proposal forms have been designed to furnish all the pertinent data that will be used by the Conmission and its member cities in making its evaluation in accordance with the rules of the Minnesota Cable Communications Board. Specific instructions for each form are stated on the individual form. Space has been provided for specific and succinct answers to all questions and requests for data. All proposers must use only the pages of the official proposal forms (or identical extension pages if more room is needed). Alternative proposal forms are neither desired nor will they be considered. Any attempt to merely use the official forms as an "index" to other voluminous documents may disqualify the proposal from consideration. The official forms have been designed to facili- tate comparison of proposals. Evasive, imprecise or incomplete responses can only serve to the disadvantage of the proposer. Alternative proposals for ser- vices within a single application which, in effect, constitute a separate propo- sal will not be considered and may cause rejection of the entire proposal. (This does not prohibit the proposer from assigning channels to levels or tiers of service with differing monthly subscriber rates). The city reserves the right to reject any and all proposals with no financial penalty or obligation on behalf of the city. K. Clarification of Proposal Documents In the event that any proposer may have any doubts as to any terms, con- ditions, or provisions of these specifications or the meaning or interpretation thereof, the proposer may request information or clarification thereon by sub- 0 0 mitting such request in writing to: Mr. Thomas D. Creighton, Consultant Stern, Levine, Schwartz, Lifson & Creighton, P.A. 5005 South Cedar Lake Road Minneapolis, MN 55416 Telephone: (612) 377-8620 Such requests for information must be submitted no later than November 29, 1982. A written response to such request will be made as soon as approved by the Commission and will be sent to all known proposers who have been supplied RFPs. Only this type of official response shall be binding upon the cities and Commission. The proposer by submitting its proposal in response to the Request for Proposals, shall have evidenced the fact that it agrees that it has no unanswered questions with respect to these specifications and shall have no basis for withdrawal or modification of its proposal on the basis of misunderstanding. L. Amendment to Proposal Substantive amendments to proposals initiated by the proposer will not be considered except to acknowledge the involuntary changes, such as a change in ownership due to death. However, the Commission and the cities hereby reserve the right during the franchise negotiation process with the successful applicant to request clarification of the proposal or to require the addition of substan- tive material which the Commission or the cities in their sole discretion deter- mines has been inadvertently omitted from the proposal or is required in the franchise document for a more complete understanding of the system of which the city is authorizing construction. Correction by proposers of inadvertent errors submitted prior to the filing deadline will be considered. Correction of inadvertent errors submitted after -10- 0 0 the filing date may be considered at the discretion of the Commission and its consultant, if the proposer submits with its correction sufficient information to prove that the error was inadvertent, in the sole opinion of the Commission. Additional information or data may be requested by the Commission or its corr- sultant if in their sole opinion this would aid in preparing a fair and accurate analysis. M. Uniform Data Requirement Tables 1 and 2 of Section III of this Request for Proposals contain demographic data on the cities involved with this project. This data must be used by all applicants in developing their proposals (revenue and expense state- ment, household growth projections, and underground plant mileage estimates, etc.). Failure to do so will be considered grounds for disqualifying an appli- cant from consideration for the franchises. N. Preliminary Franchise Provisions for awarding a 15 year nonexclusive franchise to construct, operate, and maintain a cable ocrmmmications system serving the cities of Burnsville and Eagan, Minnesota are contained in the preliminary franchise ordi- nance which it is intended will eventually be adopted in similar form by both of the two cities. This preliminary ordinance is only a preliminary ordinance. It is antici- pated that the ordinance will be developed in considerably greater detail during the period of negotiations between the city and the successful proposer. The final ordinance as agreed to by the Commission and the successful proposer will be the ordinance which will be eventually submitted to the two cities for their consideration in their individual formal ordinance procedures. Each city's ordinance will incorporate the successful proposal by reference. 72- 0 O. Legal Qualifications Evidence must be presented to assure the Commission and the member cities that the proposer complies with the applicable rules, regulations and statutes of the FOC, the State of Minnesota, and the Minnesota Cable Communications Board regarding ownership and control of regulated franchises and businesses. Proposer will, of course, be required to comply will all legal standards pre- viously listed in Section II G., as well as any future changes in such legal standards. P. Financial Plan Pro Forma An important feature of the proposal is an adequate demonstration of the financial capacity to perform in accordance with the franchise ordinance, this RFP and the proposal. Failure to provide the detailed pro forma requested may be interpreted by the Commission and the member cities as evidence that the pro- poser is not properly qualified to receive a grant of the franchise. The pro forma data submitted should include plans and terns for debt and equity par- ticipation, guarantee of compliance with local ownership policies and restric- tions estrio-tions of the Commission, financial goals, as well as financial projections and assumptions. Complete detail is required pertaining to the equity of len- ders, now and envisioned for the future, and the absence of equity participation of local investors. All understandings for equity participation are to be pro- vided in detail whether written or oral, and if equity is provided by the com- pany in exchange for services, the extent and nature of the services are to be detailed. Tiered -service structures, if offered, must be factored into the revenue projections. Adequate documentation of the proposer's assumptions and research methods must be provided so that a fair analysis can be made of the projections. 73 -12- 0 0 For purposes of the financial pro forma, as well as all other forms and require- ments, year one begins on the date the franchise is certified by the State. Q. Rate Schedule The rates initially proposed must be substantiated in the pro forma state- ments by use of realistic levels of penetration. The cities intend to regulate all rates permitted by law to be regulated and proposers must agree to such reasonable regulation (as elaborated upon in the preliminary franchise ordinance) as a condition precedent to the cities entering into a contractual relationship with the cable company. Proposers shall indicate projected increase in the pro forma projections. All pro forma projections shall be made in constant 1982 dollars. R. Demonstrated Experience in Operating a Cable Corunications System Information will be solicited concerning the applicant's cable television franchise in other cities. This information will be used by the Cc mission to inquire into the applicant's experience in other oommuni ties in which franchises are held. S. Proposal Requirements This request for proposals contains selected requirements as determined by the cities and the Commission. The cities are establishing few requirements, as they desire that all proposers have maximum freedom to develop their own innova- tive proposals. The Communications Needs Reports of each city's individual advisory bodies to their City Councils based on assessing community needs are on file in the city offices of the cities of Burnsville and Eagan, Minnesota. Proposers are advised to take these reports into consideration in developing proposals. Further, proposers should carefully review all requirements and con- ditions set forth in the preliminary franchise ordinance, and familiarize them - 74 -13- 0 0 selves with the rules of the Minnesota Cable Communications Hoard and Chapter 238 of the Minnesota Statutes. The cities fully expect to enter into firm contracts with the successful proposer for the timely delivery of all elements of the successful proposal. All items being offered by proposers are considered to be freely and voluntarily offered and will be included in the franchise ordinances and became subject to the franchise ordinance enforcement provisions. The successful proposer must agree to support any waiver required by the Federal Communications Commission for any voluntary offer of services or technical standards that may exceed FCC requirements. All applicants will be required to: 1. Propose a construction plant so that the cable distribution system will pass and service will be offered to every residence: a) in the initial service area which is designated on the maps included in the Request for Proposals (RFP); and b) in any areas outside those indicated on the maps which reaches or exceeds an average density of 40 hones per street mile during the time of construction. 2. Propose uniform rates for those residences located in the initial ser- vice area, and for those areas which reach or exceed an average density of 40 homes per street mile during the time of construction. 3. Propose rates and conditions of service for any residence located out- side both the initial service area and the designated developing areas. 4. Propose uniform rates within the designated line extension areas as shv,m on the maps included in the RFP; 5. Propose a line, extension policy to be expressed so that service will be provided to the "designated" and "other" line extension areas when a certain number of subscribers contract for service for a certain period of time. -14- -.z5- 0 0 6. Complete construction of the subscriber distribution system (and insti- tutional network) within the initial service area within two years of cer- tification of the franchises by the MOM. 7. Meet or exceed all FCC technical standards. 8. Construct cable plant underground where all other utilities are underground and change from aerial to underground when any of the utilities so change. Any change from aerial to underground shall be at the Grantee's expense. Cost of underground drop to home shall be specified in the proposal. 9. Ccmply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and codes (federal, state, and local) relating to construction and construction stan- dards. Grantee shall not open or disturb the surface of any streets or public property without first obtaining a permit from the cities. Any work done shall be in a workmanlike manner and shall not endanger the health or safety of the citizenry. Any work done shall result in the returning of the street, public property or private property to good condition at the expense of the Grantee. Grantee shall further amply with all construction standards proposed in the preliminary draft ordinance. 10. Propose fire detection, medical alert, and home -security options for the system which shall be available to a resident whether or not a subscriber takes basic services. U. Initially deliver a single cable subscriber network of at least 54 downstream video channels to resident subscribers. Proposals shall include a system design and capital budget that will most easily accommodate the expansion of channel capacity to subscribers in the future, allowing for expansion of the plant capacity without installing a second cable underground in the future. Proposals shall include a system design using the highest capacity equipment available. 12. Provide a system capable of passing upstream and downstream signals -15- 76 0 0 simultaneously, and which shall be addressable and accommodate interactive ser- vices upon system activation. Proposals shall specify the number of channels which will be initially activated to provide two-way coomunications,(video, audio and digital). 13. Provide an audio -video emergency over -ride alert system. Grantee shall propose its plan for the declaration of emergencies. "Emergencies" shall be declared by an individual designated by each city. 14. Propose a mechanism or entity to reduce the occurrence of false alarms. Grantee shall propose its plan for payment of the expense of false alarms by cable company, user, of service, subcontracted supplier of service, or any com- bination thereof. The Ccmmission requires that the general system subscriber or the city not pay for false alarms. 15. Designate an emergency channel to be operated by city in time of emergency. This may be the access channels designated for each community. This channel may be a channel used for other purposes during non -emergencies. The emergency channel shall be designated on the first tier of service. 16. Guarantee their rates and not seek rate increases until two (2) years after construction is completed in the initial service area or until three (3) years after the franchise is certified by the state, whichever is longer. 17. Pay to each City an annual fee of 5% of all gross revenues (as defined. in preliminary draft ordinance) derived from the cable system within the cor- porate boundaries of each city. The annual fee may be subject to renegotiation at such time as federal or state authorities no longer regulate the amount of the fee, but in no event shall the renegotiated fee be less than 5%. The City reserves the right to require Grantee to pay the entire franchise fee, or any portion thereof, to any joint and cooperative oamiission cities may create to administer the franchises. The franchise fee shall be used only for cable related activities. Grantee shall agree to support any waivers required by the -16- 77 E 18. Agree to rate change franchise procedures as outlined in the preliminary ordinance. 19. Agree to an initial franchise term of fifteen years, with early renewal options in sole discretion of city. 20. Agree to a franchise renewal term of not more than ten years or on a year-to-year basis in the sole discretion of city. 21. Provide at least five channels for access use which should include public, education, government, library and.regional. 22. Grantee shall provide at least two leased access video channels up to a maximum of four leased access video channels. (Grantee is encouraged to exceed this minimum requirement. Grantee will be required to increase and shall agree to increase leased access capability at the request of city. Grantee may not increase the leased access capacity of the system as proposed without prior written permission of the City). 23. Grantee will provide EM service with individually processed signals and shall provide BM service which is capable of delivering audio from the video channels (such as movies) to the FM receiver of subscribers - simultaneous to video transmission. The FM service shall be available with any tier of basic service or by itself. 24. Designate an access channel for each community or provide the technical capability of narrow -casting an access channel within the corporate boundaries of each city. (Note: The Comnission is concerned with the possible expense of narrow -casting to a city. The Commission requires a system which can be developed so that the citizens of a city could always rely on a given channel to provide its specific access needs, and so that for instance one city council meeting would not be preempted by another live broadcast of such at saw time, on same channel. Therefore, the city will sacrifice narrow -casting to each 0 0 city in favor of programming and channel designations that could be made to meet the same needs of community casting on a designated channel). 25. Propose a system which is completely interconnected throughout the two communities and capable of interconnection with all cable systems now or hereafter geographically contiguous with the two community area or in the entire major metropolitan area, where feasible, pursuant to the procedure for same found in the preliminary draft franchise. 26. Include in its proposal a separate institutional teleco munications network passing institutions and businesses to accommodate audio, video and data communications and headend switching equipment that will allow signals from the institutional network. The cities reserve the right to delete the proposed institutional networks and associated expenses from the system design and finan- cial projections should the effect of the cost on regular subscriber rates prove to be undesirable. 27. Include in its proposal detailed capital costs, marketing plans, and anticipated revenues and effect on subscriber rates associated with designing and constructing the institutional network. 28. Include in its proposal its plan for servicing publicly owned buildings as designated in attachment A to this RFP, provided those buildings are also in the initial service area. Grantee shall agree to add additional public buildings at the request of the official body administering the franchise. The City recognizes that Northview Elementary School (Eagan Facility $31 - See Attachment A) is not within the initial service area. However, the City invites proposers to provide service to Northview Elementary School pro- vided said service will not adversely effect general subscriber rates. 29. Present evidence of financial resources that assure the city of the company's ability to complete the entire construction of the initial service area within the construction period specified in the proposal. 77 0 0 30. Cady with all applicable laws and rules regarding equal employment opportunity and fair labor standards. 31. Provide some form of programming "lockout" control. The lockout capabi- lity should provide for the discretionary deletion of individual programs or entire channels. 32. Demonstrate a commitment to providing a variety of origination programming; provide access support including color studio and location pro- duction equipment, post -production equipment and use of present video facilities; provide a plan accommodating growth of access production; provide production center(s) geographically located so that the greatest number of residents throughout the system may be located closest to production facilities, while assuring that at least sone form of production center is located within the cor- porate boundaries of both Burnsville and Eagan. 33. Provide for free installation rates and 158 discount on all other rates for those dwelling units in which the head of the household is a senior citizen (65 years of age or older), or handicapped. Proposers shall utilize the following definition of "handicapped person" in applying discounts for service: "One who, because of 'a substantial physical, mental or emotional disability or dysfunction requires special services in order to enjoy the benefits of our society, provided the person has shown a record of the disability or dysfunction." 34. Provide for uniform service rates for all other residential subscribers located within the initial service area with no other discounted service rates for classes of residential subscribers other than those discounts outlined in the previous paragraph. 35. Provide separate rates for installations to hares/businesses/industries located within 200 feet from the distribution system and those located 200.feet or more from the distribution system. 36. Provide for separate installation rates for aerial verses underground installations. -19- 8o 0 0 37. Provide monthly non -premium service at no charge (for subscriber and any institutional network services) to public and non-public schools, libraries, and city office buildings and otherwise within the initial service area and listed on attachment A (and any other primary governmental facility designated by city in the future). The installation and provision of any necessary converters shall be at cost. Y 38. State the company's policy regarding the subscriber's option to purchase a converter. 39. Construct the distribution systems to accommodate the needs of busi- nesses or industries providing that such acro miodation does not adversely affect service or rates for service to residential subscribers. Applicants should con- tact representatives of businesses and industries to determine their interest in cable, and should include results of such contacts in their proposals. 40. If a tiering structure is proposed, propose a low-priced tier which contains the access channels reserved for public, education, government, library, regional interconnect and leased use (2), local broadcast channels, community information channel, program guide, and other services to make it an attractive subscriber alternative, plus the option of a pay cable service such as Hone Box Office, Showtime or The Movie Channel but not such services as MN plus. Applicants must not propose a universal service tier whereby subscribers receive selected channels for no monthly service charge, but only an installa- tion cost. 41. If a tiering structure is proposed, provide a tiering structure whereby premium services such as movie channels may be purchased on an independant basis and need not be purchased in any sequential order. 42. Carry broadcast channels 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, and 17 on corresponding cable channels. -20- jg 43. Provide special interest programming in theareas of arts, health, edu- cation, consumer information, religion, national news, weather and sports, and programming serving the needs of special age groups, and that the services be available on a lower-priced tier to make them readily available to subscribers. 44. Provide autanated programming carrying national and regional news, weather information and weather radar, and that these services be placed on the lower-priced tier, so as to make them readily available to subscribers. 45. Provide a local news service, plus a 24 hour per day community infor- mation channel for promoting community events sponsored by non-oortmercial enti- ties with no advertising. The community information channel should be available an the lowest -priced tier of service. 46. Provide a system design so that subscribers with multi -cable outlets in one dwelling unit may view different programs on their television sets simultaneously. 47. Provide a system design for both subscriber and any institutional net- work that will accommodate point-to-point, point -to -multi -point, and multi- point -to -multi -point data communications. The cities are interested in having applicants propose: (a) dedicated bandwidth on the subscriber network to accommodate two-way transmissions among personal computers; and (b) dedicated bandwidth on the institutional network that may be leased by users and that will accommodate high speed data transmissions for simultaneous users. The need for providing connections to and contractual arrangements for additional data bases and/or additional bandwidth for data transmissions on the subscriber and institutional network will be considered during the periodic franchise renegotiation sessions. 48. Provide a system offering interactive services such as video games, business oommncations, subscriber responses, home computer tie-ins, and electronic newspapers, provided that the cost of subscriber equipment for and operating costs of providing said interactive services shall be borne by those subscribers opting for the service. This requirement should not be viewed as 8Z -21- 0 0 discouraging budgets allocating research and development funds which may be clearly delineated in the proposal and considered in the rates proposed. 49. State the company's programming policy of copyright ownership of local origination and access programming produced in conjunction with local groups and institutions. Said policy should include at least the requirement that should the oomnunity group own the copyright and at same point realize a profit from distributing the program produced, the group will reimburse the access programming entity up to the cost of actual production only. T. Evaluation Criteria 1. In general, applicants will be rated according to the following criteria which are not listed in any rank order: Services Broadcast Stations Origination (Special Interest) Programming Automated Programming Local Origination Access Channels Access Support and Policies Payable Interactive Services FM and Audio Services Institutional Services Tiered Service Structures Community Surveys Technical & Engineering Signal Reception Plans Emergency Override Subscriber Network Capacity Procedure for Delivery of Services Subscriber Network Coverage & Construction Institutional Network Technical Performance Reliability Regional Interconnection Maintenance and Repair -22- Chi 0 0 Financial and Management Financial Goal System Financing Rates & Rate Guarantees Financial Plans Performance in Other Systems Operated by Applicant Employment Practices Local Management Local Ownership 2. Applicants will not be judged on the order in which communities will be constructed and provided service. 3. Priority will be given to the proposer which (Note: Items within cate- gories do not appear in any rank order): High Priorities: Low Cost line extension policy Short time table for construction for initial service area Reasonable rates for basic and pay service Suitable access support Interactive service proposals (long range development -see lower priority below) An attractive low price tier as referred to in item No. 40 in the minimum policy requirements of the RFP Ability and funds for services upgrading growth Responsive repair service and maintenance Interconnection commitment Institutional Network develcpnent plans Automated programming Wide variety of pay options High Technical standards Company commitment to rate projections in its proposal Reasonable financial projections Medium Priorities Local origination programning plans Proven track record in other communities Short timetable for construction of remainder of system Lower Priorities* Wide variety of national and regional programs Interactive service proposals (short range plans - first three years of system activation) * NDTE: while these are lower priorities than the high and medium priorities listed above, they are still priorities of the cities. -23- 84 III. Qk'PR7DTPi7 NEEC6 ASSE,SSMENM. The needs assessments for each city are on file at the.city offices of the Cities of Burnsville -and Eagan, Minnesota IV.. IlE1NOGPAPHI(M See Tables I, 11, and maps attached. Ir u Burnsville 36,280 198 12,850 4,344 65 * 16,676 ESTIMNTED PLANT Eagan 20,700 107.35 9,090 3,453 AVERAGE* 21,000 MILEAGE IN INITIAL TOTAL MULTIPLE DWELLING SERVICE AREA TO BE STREET DWELLING DWELLING UNITS PER CONSTRUCTED CITY PCPULATION MILES UNITS UNITS STREET MILE ACREAGE UNDERGROUND Burnsville 36,280 198 12,850 4,344 65 * 16,676 67 Eagan 20,700 107.35 9,090 3,453 85 * 21,000 50 Qo These figures represent data collected from the city staffs of Burnsville and Eagan. This data reflects information for the entire cable service territory. An indication of data for the initial service area may be found in the assumptions used by OTIC Associates, Inc., when modeling a cable system to check for financial viability. *These data are as follows for the initial service area: • A. Total plant miles = 222 B. Aerial plant miles = 105 C. Underground plant miles = 117 D. Density = 92 homes per cable mile While every attempt has been made to insure the accuracy of the data, and each applicant is required to use the data when developing its proposal, the actual figures may vary from those shown on this table. The successful applicant will be required to construct and operate the system according to the actual circumstances encountered in each city. ATTACHMENT A continued �:li G.�.7p yl:: y: Ml YYI✓. Burnsville City Hall 1313 East Highway 13 Burnsville Fire and Police Departments 14011 Burn -Haven Drive Burnsville Ice Arena 251 Civic Center Parkway Independent School District 191 Administrative Offices 100 River Ridge Court Burnsville Senior High School 600 East Highway 13 Metcalf Junior High School (Eagan) Highway 13 & County Road 30 Nicollet Junior High School 400 East 134th Street Byrne Elementary School 11608 River Hills Drive Gideon Pond Elementary School 130th Street & Portland Avenue South Neill Elementary School 13409 Upton Avenue South Sioux Trail Elementary School 2801 River Hills Drive Sky Oaks Elementary School 100 East 134th Street Vista View Elementary School 13109 County Road 5 Echo Park Elementary School 14100 County Road 11 Dakota County Library 1101 west County road 42 Ridges Health Center 200 East Nicollet Boulevard (Private) .A BURNSVIIS E 1990 51,000 population 18,500 households 2000 59,000 population 21,400 households PAGAN 1990 37,000 population 13,350 households 2000 50,000 population 17,250 households (Data taken frau Metropolitan Council Comprehensive Plans) 1 W 87 ATTACHMENT A 1. Highview Park 41. Well Site Park 2. Country Home Heights Park 42. Thomas Lake Park 3. Lexington Park 43. Evergreen Park 4. Fire Station #2 44 Thomas Lake Elementary 5. Trinity Lone Oak School 45. Highline Trail 6. Burr Oaks Park 46. Rahn Elementary 7. Donnyrood Park 47. Rahn Park 8. Pilot Knob Park 48. Metcalf Junior High 9. Coachman Oaks Park 49. River Hills Park 10. Pilot Knob Elementary 50. Driver Test Center 11. Public Works Building 51. Dakota County Court Building 12. DeBoer Park 52. Ridgecliff Park 13. Gopher -Eagan Park 53. Johnny Cake Trail 14. Fish Lake Park 54. Dakota County Park 15. Dakota County Library 55. Walden Heights Park 16. Potential Civic Center Site 17. Police Department/City Hall 18. Historic City Hall 19. Fire Administration Building 20. Blackhawk Park 21. Peridot Path Park 22. Woodhaven Park 23. Fire Station #1 24. Sewer Treatment Plant 25. Cedar Grove Sewage Plant 26. Cedar Pond Park 27. Carnelian Park 28. Hilltop Park 29. Patrick Eagan Park 30. Northview Park 31. Northviea Elementary 32. Lakeside Park 33. South Oaks Park 34. Oak Pond Hills Park 35. Wedgewood Park 36. Capricorn Park 37. Ches Mar Park 38. Oak Chase Park 39. Carlson Lake Park 40. Fire Station #3 * See minimum requirement #28 regarding service to the above facilities, provided those facilities are otherwise within the initial service area. NOPE ALSO a number of the above facilities are "parks" or "trails" and will not require cable service. See attached map for details. (' kk j MLM1UV I• Fli COMMUNITY -r. - — �'tp1 J � • 17a .., 1 '.��.i.Li FACILITIES CITY OF ct 1... * 5 ON OAK R0111 6r 71ii :y .,j.@•il il.l r8 ,•�� �•�:'' _-'�-_�.': `��,�. � NIOHK. ' I 1I1IIr •/�% ,:�l 1j �- 9 � �: _ L' _.�1I}_ :: 1.�• I ��� ��"��j . v NKEE DOODLE ROAD pl PARKS { 1 —{ '�1%a r' ✓'r ,'r��..' 12 rl SCHOOLSjk 'e, I? GOVERNMENT ,` ' iF24 (�� { i^'ir.:P.. ° ''�j' 4 _ I� BUILDINGS .' �i I r�1 � . 22 >;1r �11`� LIBRARY I /� ' ' : ; • ii_'^I' •.'A" °o .�76a Er c ^ :Y W (' COUNTY N ROAD 30 ' W i a yid Lim L` r; L h ff ,M , ; 31 . ,�1it:""'�r- I:,,,: • �'. i T,.: ; U V '.`�f(i:';•y i'.. '��� .. n. ..... 7 �! Irv'®' l9 F. q�R�pA'D.. ''i --- i! .wLi. MLL[I ' !,•.• • fI '. A04f40U11T_ , EAGM • INITIAL SERVICE AREA00 a •i J .. T.T. „mac. EAGAN wagm fs 92, 11 .. �� L.• w � � � r� \ • � M.,. .l i Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Thirteen 0LIIrBLISINESS 0 WIND ENERGY SYSTEM & RADIO/TV TOWER ORDINANCE A. Consideration of a Wind Energy System & Radio/TV Tower Ordinance -- At the September 7, 1982 City Council meeting, a wind energy systems and radio/tv towers ordinance was reviewed by the City Council. Questions were raised regarding: 1. A request for information regarding the structural strength of a windmill base, and 2. Concerns regarding certain language requiring a professional engineer's inspection of the windmill. The City Administrator's office has addressed the issues raised by the City Council and enclosed is a copy of a memorandum from Administrative Intern Johnson, upon the direction of the City Ad- ministrator, that reviews the information as requested. This memorandum is found on pages94' through 9s The ordinance as proposed for consideration is round on pages _lam through /0( ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the pro- posed wind energy system and radio/tv towers ordinance. 31 0 MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN JOHNSON DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 1982 SUBJECT: ENERGY - WINDMILL ORDINANCE 0 Pursuant to your request, staff has reviewed the proposed windmill ordinance in an attempt to clarify the language concerns of the City Council. The Burnsville Buick dealer, the Jacobs Wind Electric Company and the Chief Building Inspector were contacted to provide information regarding this ordinance. The people from the Burnsville wick dealership were unable to provide staff with any helpful information. Ownership of the com- pany has recently changed '.hands and there was no one there who knew anything about windroIlls. They did, however, tell staff that the installation of their windmill was contracted out to an archi- tectural firm which worked with the Jacobs Wind Electric Company. Guarantees pertaining to the structural base of the windmill could not be obtained from the Buick dealership. They also told staff that their company does not sell Jacobs Windmills. Having no luck with the Burnsville Buick dealer, staff proceeded to contact the Jacobs Wind Electric Company. Their Minneapolis office was contacted and information dealing with windmills was requested. Staff received brochures regarding their product, but they were basically promotional and informational. We were then instructed by their Minneapolis office to talk with a dealer in Somerset, Wisconsin. Staff also requested information dealing with guarantees from these people. Copies of tower and foundation data were what was received. Staff never did receive any informa- tion dealing with the specifics of guarantees. In our telephone conversation with the Wisconsin dealer, staff learned the following: 1. A Jacobs Windmill dealer normally constructs the foundation for their towers; 2. They provide buyers of windmills with documentation that their towers will withstand winds up to 110 m.p.h.; 3. Their towers have received a professional engineer's certi- fication; and 4. The company will provide a certified engineer's inspection and stamped certified seal should they be required. This information should deal with questions in Subd. 2, Section C, as raised by the Council. 94 Windmill Ordinance Memo September 30, 1982 Page Two Staff also discussed the proposed windmill ordinance with the Chief Building Official. His comments were as follows: 1. Subd. 2, Section C, should contain language stating that documentation regarding the tower structure should be signed and certified by an "appropriate" professional engineer registered in the State o if- n�' nesNa. 2. All references to the Uniform Building Code should be changed to the State Building Code. 3. Subd. 3, Section B -- Chapter 2311 of the SBC deals with wind uplift loads and state statute makes it mandatory to build according to these regulations. The language in this paragraph is related to those regulations and should be left in the ordinance. A certified engineer's inspection would not be necessary provided that the Protective In- spection Department has the design criteria on file. Other than these comments the Chief -Building Official had nothing else to add to the ordinance. I hope that the information that has been obtained clarifies those issues raised by the City Council. Should you need additional information or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me. 9S 0 0 8-30-82 WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM .. AND RADIO OR TV TOWER HEIGHT LIMITATIONS SECTION 4._ PLACEMENT, ERECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS AND RADIO OR TV TOWERS. Subd. 1. Purpose, Construction and Definitions. A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section shall be to regulate the placement, erection and maintenance of wind energy conversion systems and TV or radio towers in the City so as to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City. B. Construction. All terms and words used in this Section shall be given their common sense meaning considered in context, except as hereinafter specifically defined. C. Definitions. 1. "Wind Energy Conversion System" -- A device such as a windcharger, windmill, or windturbine which converts wind energy to another form of usable energy such as electricity or heat. 2. "Radio or TV Antenna" -- Any radio or TV antenna in excess of the height limitation imposed by the Eagan Zoning Ordinance No. 3. "Tower" -- Any structure used to elevate a wind energy conversion system or a radio/TV antenna in excess of the height limitation imposed by the Eagan Zoning Ordinance No. Subd. 2. Conditional Use. A. No wind energy conversion system or TV/radio antenna as described in subdivision 2 shall be erected anywhere within the City without ( first submitting an application for and obtaining from the City a conditional use permit and compliance with the procedures provided in the Zoning Chapter: ?6 1 0 0 B. Application for said permit shall be made to the City in Cthe same manner as a building permit pursuant to City of Eagan ordinance code. A building permit formula should be used to calculate a fee which shall be payable at the time that the application is made. C. Prior to the issuance of a permit, the applicant shall provide to the City documentation or other evidence from the dealer or manufacturer that the wind energy conversion system has been successfully operated in atmospheric conditions and is warranted against any system failures under reasonably expected severe weather operation conditions as established by the building official. The application shall also provide to the City documentation that the tower structure for the system has received a professional engineer's certification. Subd. 3. Requirements and Specifications. All energy conversion systems and radio/TV towers (where applicable) C erected anywhere within the City shall comply with the following requirements: A. Applicable provisions of the Eagan Ordinance Code including the applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code (standards) therein adopted shall be complied with in addition to those requirements set out in this ordinance. B. Wind energy conversion system tower foundations shall be Z designed to resist two times the wind uplift calculated pursuant to the q�lr- Uniform Building Code as adopted by the City of Eagan and shall have a professional engineer's certification w- r °" • C. No part of any wind energy conversion system or TV radio tower or any equipment or lines used in connection therewith or connected thereto including any tower foundation areas, shall be constructed or main - 9 -7 2 tained at any time permanently or temporarily, in or upon any drainage or utility easement. D. No wind energy conversion system tower or TV/radio antenna tower shall be constructed within 20 feet laterally of any overhead electrical power line (excluding secondary electrical service lines or "service stubs".) Setback from said electric distribution lines shall be at least five feet. E. No wind energy conversion system or TV/radio antenna supporting tower shall exceed a height of 100 feet, or the distance from the tower to the nearest property line, whichever is less, measured from the base of the tower to the highest point of the tower, without a variance. F. Wind energy conversion systems utilizing propellers shall not have rotor diameters greater than 35 feet. G. All wind energy conversion systems shall be equipped with automatic speed control devices as part of their design. H. Blade arcs created by a wind energy conversion system shall be a minimum of 30 feet above the ground. I. Wind energy conversion systems and towers shall be adequately grounded for protection against direct strike by lighting and shall comply, as to electrical wiring and connections, with applicable federal regulations, Minnesota State Statutes and regulations, as well as City of Eagan codes. J. All lines and wires extending substantially horizontal above the ground from a tower or extended to a building, tower or structure, shall be at least eight feet above the ground at all points. K. Wind Energy Conversion Systems and commercial radio/TV towers shall be guarded against unauthorized climbing. The first 12 feet of the tower shall be unclimbable by design or enclosed by a 6 -foot high, nonclimbable fence with a lockable gate. 9g 3 0 0 Subd. 4. Insurance. All personal radio and TV towers shall be adequately insured for injury and property damage caused by collapse of the towers. All other applicants must provide liability insurance in the amount of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and $50,000 for property damage for any liability that may arise as the result of collapse, falling debris, electrical discharge or any other occurrence causing damage or injury to persons or property resulting from the wind energy system or radio/TV tower. Subd. 5. Towers. Only one tower exceeding the limitations of the zoning ordinance shall be permitted in a residential lot. Subd. 6. Abandoned Towers -- Removal. Any wind energy system which is not used for twelve (12) successive months commencing the effective date of this ordinance, shall be deemed abandoned and shall be removed as abandoned property. Subd. 7. Variances. Variances from the strict provisions of this Ordinance may be granted pursuant to the variance provisions of the Eagan Zoning Ordinance. Subd. 8. Existing Systems. Wind Energy Conversion Systems and radio/TV antennae in existence at the time of adoption of this ordinance shall be granted conditional use permits. However, safety measures which are requirements of this ordinance shall be complied with if not involving major structural change to the tower or substantial expense to the owner. Subd. 9. Violations. ( Any person violating the provisions of this ordinance shall be ` guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day such violation continues shall constitute a 5 99 L. Personal TV and radio towers shall be unclimbable by design for the first 8 feet or completely surrounded. by a fence in excess of 3 feet in height. M. Except for illumination devices required by FAA regulations and residential lighting in compliance with City codes, no wind energy conver- sion System or tower shall have affixed or attached to it in any way any lights, reflectors, flashers or other illumination devices. N. No wind energy conversion system shall have attached to it in any way any signs (does not include equipment labels), banners, or placards of any kind, except for one sign, not to exceed two square feet, which dis- plays suitable warning of danger to unadvised persons, the systems manu- facturer, and energy shutdown procedures. 0. All wind energy conversion systems and TV/radio antennas shall comply with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Noise Pollution Section (NPC 1 and NPC 2) as amended. P. All wind energy conversion systems and TV/radio antennas shall comply with all applicable Federal Communications Commission regulations as amended. Q. All such structures shall comply with all applicable Federal Aviation Administration regulations as amended. R. The interface of the wind energy conversion system with the consumer's electric service shall be performed pursuant to all applicable federal and Minnesota regulations. The owner shall notify their local elec- tric utility company in advance of such interface. The company shall review and comment upon any applications affecting their service. Both parties shall regulate their activities in a cooperative manner including the purchase of ( excess electricity by the utility company if required by state law. 100 4 separate offense and be punished accordingly. Subd. 10. Effect. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the passage and publication as required by law. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF EAGAN BY: ATTEST: BEATTA BLOMQUIST, MAYOR E. J. VANOVERBEKE9 CITY CLERK I iD( 6 This ordinance adopted: This ordinance published in the Eagan Chronicle: I iD( 6 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Fourteen PRELIMINARY PLAT - ODELL'S ADDITION B. David R. & Patricia B. Odell for Preliminary Plat, Odell's Addition, Consisting of Approximately One Acre and Containing Two Single Family Lots -- At the last regular City Council meeting, the recommendation of the Advisory Planning Commission to deny the preliminary plat for "Odell's Addition" was referred to the City Attorney's office for further review. There were a number of questions raised by the City Council pertaining to the inter- pretation of the existing garage as being a principal building on the newly proposed lot, a review of the restrictive covenants and other pertinent issues pertaining to the proposed preliminary plat. A copy of the City Attorney's letter is enclosed on pages 163 through JOS* for your review. Refer to pages 50-63, 9-21-82 City Council Packet, for a copy of the Planner's report and the APC minutes for additional information on this item. Contact this office if you have misplaced the infor- mation and a new copy will be distribured on Monday. Also enclosed on pages/06is a letter from Daniel Beeson which addresses a number o issues relating to the proposed preliminary plat for Odell's Addition. Mr. Terrance Votel, who is a property owner and also an attorney and is the spokesman for the residents adjacent to the Odell property, has written a letter to the Mayor and City Council and a copy of that letter is enclosed on pages IJZ, through �jr- • ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the recom- mendation of the APC to deny the preliminary plat entitled Odell's Addition. 102 HAUGE, SM=, EIDE c& HEL xR. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS 9505 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN (ST. PAUL). MINNESOTA 55122 PAUL H. HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 October 1, 1982 Re: O'Dell Preliminary Plat - McCarthy Ridge Dear Tom: AREA C.00E 512 TELEPHONE 454.4224 At the last Council meeting, the City Attorney's office was requested to address several issues that came up regarding the proposed plat for the O'Dells. We will try to -,enulherate the issues and clarify them as much as possible in this letter and hopefully aid the Council in reaching a well reasoned decision. 1. One of the big issues appears to be whether the Declaration of Restrictions recorded approximately at the time of the platting of McCarthy Ridge was still in effect and would prevent the creation of lots of less than one acre. Mr. Beeson, the attorney for the O'Dells, argues vigorously that Minnesota Statutes Section 500.20 limits the effectiveness of such a set of Covenants to thirty years from the date of the document creating the Covenants. Although this appears to be an issue that should probably be resolved between the private parties involved, we have done some research for the Council's information. Mr. Beeson's interpretation of Minnesota Statutes does appear to be accurate, however, wording does appear to leave one possible interpretation that would result in the .Covenants still being in effect. Section 500.20, Subd. 2 provides that Covenants shall be effective for thirty years after "the date of the deed or other instrument creating them". Cases on the statute involve condi- tions described within Quit Claim Deeds and Warranty Deeds. Thus, any conditions would have gone into effect at the same time as the deeds and the statute would be easily applied. However, in this particular situation the Restrictions or Covenants were created by a separate document. While that document was dated June 26, 1952, it is questionable whether the Restrictions or Covenants were created at that time. It could be argued. that these Covenants had no effect until August 29, 1952 when they were apparently recorded at the time of the conveyance of the first lot of McCarthy Ridge Addition. If this is a correct understanding of the facts, then the Declarations may have had no effect until the date of the first deed conveying out a lot in McCarthy Ridge Addition and the concurrent recording date of the Declarations and Restrictions. Thus, it could be argued that the Covenants are effective from August 29, 1952 until August 29, 1982, in which case they would still be in effect in that Minnesota Statutes 500.20, Subd. 2 was repealed as of August 1, 1982. 1o3 Mr. Hedges • • October 1, 1982 Page Two It would appear that the Covenant issue is not one that necessarily should be addressed by the Council. However, the information seemed relevant and it might be advisable for the parties to resolve the issue if necessary prior to commencing work on a second dwelling. 2. It was suggested at the last Council meeting that the remaining residents of McCarthy Ridge Addition might consider applying for Estate Zoning for their large lots. The provision for Estate Zoning is found in Ordinance Section 52.07, Subd. 3.5, however, the process of obtaining Estate Zoning is found in Section 52.09, Subd. 5(b), which requires that a petition of owner or owners of property to be rezoned be presented to the Council. It would appear that the owners would have to sign such a petition and notice to neighboring landowners would be provided pursuant.to Zoning Ordinance. 3. It was pointed out at the last Council meeting that the proposed preliminary plat for the O'Dells appears to meet all of the minimum requirements of Subdivision Ordinance No. 10. Our research indicates that this is indeed true. The opposing parties argue that the meeting of minimum requirements may not be enough and cite a White Bear Lake case. This case does not appear to be applicable to the present sitaution in that it was a case involving a special use permit where the permit holder changed the use from a 10' x 18' temporary trailer to a 10' x 50' trailer on a lot with the potential for permanent residency. In our opinion this case is very distinguishable from the present situation. It can possibly be argued that there is an intent by Ordinance No. 10 which has to do with planning and aesthetics. Naturally it is hard to use this as a basis for denying a plat since the reasons: may not be considered valid and thus a decision might be considered unreasonable and arbitrary. Another problem with making such a decision based on intent would be the precedent value of prior decisions of the Council in regard to other lot splits and plats. 4. The objecting parties also cite Ordinance Section 52.06, Subd. 24(b)(13) which provides that "all land zoned residential R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and R-5 shall be platted prior to placing any structure thereon. . . " Taken by itself, this wording would make it impossible to have two new lots with a garage on one and house on the other prior to the platting process. However, as we have attempted to point out to the parties, this particular clause comes under headings in the Ordinance involving site, design and development requirements for multiple dwelling sites. It is quite clear that the wording was provided to prevent construction of units with common party walls before actual platting unless it was absolutely necessary. Literal interpretation of the words taken out of context would probably have prevented a great deal of the construction and platting ever done in the City of Eagan. 5. Another major issue and potential for compromise of this situation is the location of the oversized garage on one proposed new lot. It has been suggested that the garage would now be in the front setback area and be within the 30 -foot requirement under Zoning Ordinance and thus become a nonconforming use that could be required to be corrected prior to approval of the plat. However, it should be pointed out that the garage as it presently stands is a nonconforming use in that it is located within 30 feett,of a public street in violation of Ordinance Section 52.07, Subd. 5. Therefore, Mr. Beeson has argued that the garage is an existing /04 Mr. Hedges October 1, 1982 Page Three nonconforming use that is not being expanded because of the plat. He is suggesting that the nonconforming use is not relevant to the request for pre- liminary plat. Continuance of a nonconforming use appears to be allowed under Ordinance Section 52.06, Subd. 3, yet it might be argued that front setbacks are distinguishable and more important than side setbacks on streets. In conclusion, it appears that the Council does not have a good basis for denial of the plat in relation to standards set by any of the ordinances. Any denial would apparently have to be based upon the intent of the Subdivision Ordinance as it relates to planning and aesthetics and possibly the resolution of the Covenant issue between the private parties. It should be noted that it is possible that in spite of the granting of the preliminary plat, the other owners of McCarthy Ridge may be able to prevent the O'dells from acting upon their plat through enforcement of the Covenants if they are indeed valid. skk Very truly yours, HAUGE, SMITH, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. David G. Keller %�5 9 LAW OFFICES LeVander, Gillen, Miller, Anderson & Kuntz 402 DROVERS BANK BLDG. • 633 SOUTH CONCORD ST. • P.O. BOX 296 SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 • TELEPHONE (6121 451-1631 September 28, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Eagan City Council 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, PIN 55122 0 HAROLD "VANDER ARTHUR GILLEN ROGER C. MILLER HAROLD LEVANDER. JR. PAUL H. ANDERSON TIMOTHY J. KUNTZ DANIEL J. BEESON U'If), Re: Odell's Addition Application of David R. 'and Patricia B. Odell for Preliminary Plat Approval Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: At the previous meeting of the City Council the above matter was referred to the City Attorney for a legal opinion regarding two matters relating to the Odells' application for preliminary plat approval. The first item related to the validity of certain covenants dated June 26, 1952 relating to the McCarthy Ridge Addition. The second item related to the authority of the Council .to require removal or destruction of a valid, pre- existing nonconforming use, i.e., the detached garage on the southeast corner of the premises (Lot 2), as a condition to granting plat approval of a single lot subdivision which meets all of the specific requirements of the Eagan platting and zoning ordinances. On behalf of the Odells, allow me to respond as follows. First, I must reiterate that the matter of the existence or non-existence of the covenants is a private civil matter. It is totally unrelated to the Council's duty to determine whether the proposed plat meets the specific requirements of City Ordinance No. 10. Nevertheless, for the benefit of the objecting property owners, the Council has requested a legal opinion regarding the validity of the covenants. As a matter of law, the covenants automatically ceased to be valid and operative on June 26, 1982, for the following reasons: Minnesota Statutes Section 500.20, Subd. 2 provides: "All covenants... hereafter created by any other means... shall cease to be valid and operative 30 years after... (the) instrument creating them; and after such period of time they may be wholly disregarded." /E 0 0 blayor and City Council Members Page Two September 28, 1982 This statute was considered by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Matter of Turners Crossroad Development Co., 277 N.W. 2d 364 (Minn. 1979), in which a restriction on land use was created by a deed dated April 23, 1949. The court held that the statute, Section 500.20, Subd. 2, was constitutional. It also held that the restriction automatically terminated on April 23, 1979, by reason of this statute. The same conclusion was reached in the earlier case of Housing and Redevelopment Authority v. United Stockyards Corp., 309 Minn. 331, 244 N.W. 2d 275.(1976). Therefore, restrictive covenants created after April 27, 1937 (the effective date of Section 500.20, Subd. 2), automatically cease 30 years after the date of the instrument creating the restrictions, and thereafter may be wholly disregarded. This opinion is consistent with Minnesota Title Standards, Standard 91A. Laws 1982, C. 500, Section 5 repeals section 500.20, Subd. 2. Minnesota Statutes Section 645.02 provides that acts of the legislature are effective on August 1 next following their final enactment, unless a different date is specified in the act. A different date is not specified in Laws 1982, C. 500 for the effective date of the repealer. Therefore, the repeal of Section 500.20, Subd. 2 was effective August 1, 1982. Under the Turners Crossroad case, the restrictive covenants as to the Odell property automatically ceased on June 26, 1982, by virtue of Section 500.20, Subd. 2, which is prior to the effective date of the repeal of that section. Consequently, the restrictive covenants are no longer operable as of June 26, 1982, and the later repeal of the statute does not affect the situation. This conclusion is consistent with the opinion of the Title Standards Committee of the Minnesota State Bar Association which has recommended the Amendment of Title Stan- dard 91A to provide that all covenants, conditions and restric- tions created on and after April 27, 1937, may be disregarded "if the thirty-year period ends prior to August 1, 1982." (See attached Exhibit A.) As to the second issue, as a matter of law the Council may not condition or deny approval to the Odell preliminary plat on the basis that the garage currently in existence and use on proposed Lot 2 is a nonconforming use. l Under -the current zoning ordinance the garage is a valid, pre-existing noncon- forming use. Where the platting does not create the noncon- forming use, and the plat meets all of the zoning and platting requirements, the Council has no discretion to deny plat approval. Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 1The garage is presently located within the minimum 30 -foot setback requirement imposed by Section 52.07, Subd. 5(A). The garage predates adoption of this ordinance provision. /07 0 0 Mayor and City Council Members Page Three September 28, 1982 297 Minn. 294, 211 N.W. 2d 358 (1973). As the Supreme Court held in Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1 206 N.W. 2d 19 (1973): It is now settled that where a specifies standards to apply i to arant a (special use nermif lLnpnasis aaaea.) See also, zy Crystal, 283 Minn. 192 167 N.W. It has similarly been held that "a denial of the application for the (conditional use permit) must be based on the fact that some standard of the zoning ordinance was not met by the applicant's plans." Inland Construction Companyv. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374, 195 N.W. 2d 558 (1972). The same standard applies to the determination of whether to grant or deny the Odell plat. National Capital Corporation v. City of Inver Grove Heights, 501 Minn. 335, 222 N.W. 2d 550 (1974). The Odell garage is an impressive oversize detached garage with dimensions of approximately 24' x 26'. (See Exhibits E and F presented to Council at September 21st Council meeting.) It is large enough to accommodate two full size automobiles, or an automobile and large motor or sail boat. The garage is insulated, heated and has been continuously used. Its estima- ted value is at least $10-12,000 and represents a substantial enhancement to the value of the property. The cost of removal to a new on-site location would exceed $5,000-5,500.00 for moving and related expenses for construction of a new foundation. This is cost prohibitive and not a viable alternative. Nor is it an option which the Council may legally consider. The present Eagan zoning ordinance Section 52.06, Subd. 3, expressly provides as follows: The adoption and provisions of this Ordinance shall not prohibit the continued use or expansion or re- building of any use or building existing upon the date of adoption of this Ordinance which would have conform- ed to the provisions of Sections 6.01 through and including 6.06 which was repealed by this Ordinance. (See Section 52.02.) Said expansion shall not be interpreted to permit an initial development in accord- ance with said repealed ordinance. Said expansion or rebuilding shall only relate to existing buildings or uses. (Emphasis added.1 Jos 0 0 Mayor and City Council Members Page Four September 28, 1982 The garage was a valid, pre-existing nonconforming use at the time of the adoption of the current zoning ordinance. Regard- less of whether the parcel is subdivided, the garage will remain a valid, pre-existing nonconforming use "grandfathered" in under the zoning ordinance. The Eagan ordinance simply recognizes a traditional restriction on the City's power to enact zoning ordinances in that such restrictions must be subservient to vested property interests and uses already established. Hawkins V. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549, 80 N.W. 2d 863 (1957). Eagan must either permit the valid nonconforming use to remain or, in the alternative, eliminate the use by exercise of the right of eminent domain. Freeborn v. Clamssen, 295 Minn. 96, 203 N.W. 2d 323 (1972). In the present case the garage is presently a nonconforming use. It is not created by the event of platting. It will continue to exist as a valid, nonconforming use regardless of whether the Odell parcel is or is not subdivided into two separate lots. The existence of the garage is a valid, nonconforming use that is functionally unrelated to the platting ordinance and its requirements. While it may be argued that the act of platting constitutes an impermissible "expansion" of the nonconforming use, reference to the controlling Ordinance Section 56.03, Subd. 3 again demonstrates that the garage use may not only be continued, but it may be expanded as well. Therefore, even if the act of platting were viewed as an expansion of the existing nonconform- ing garage use (which applicants maintain it is clearly not) the ordinance expressly allows "all" such "expansions". See Girvan v. County of LeSeuer, 305 Minn. 175, 232 N.W. 2d 888 (1975). The only real issue before the Council is whether or not, under existing laws and ordinances the Odells have fully complied with all ordinance requirements. Twin City Red Barn, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 291 Minn. 548, 192 N.W. 2d 189 (1971). It should be agreed that in all respects the Odell preliminary plat application meets all of the specific requirements of the platting and zoning ordinances. As observed by the Supreme Court in National Capital Corporation v. Village of Inver Grove Heights, supra: /09 0 0 Mayor and City Council Members Page Five September 28, 1982 The Odell plat meets all of the requirements of the Eagan platting and zoning ordinances. The -Council, therefore, has no discretion to deny the preliminary plat application. To do so would result in denial of due process to the Odells, as well as a taking of private property for public use in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions, as well as federal law. Minn. Const., art. IX, 91; U.S. Const., amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Odells therefore renew their request that the City Council gait their application for preliminary plat approval. submitted, r el/JJ Beeson DJB: cc: Paul Hauge Dave Keller, Attorneys for the City of Eagan David and Patricia Odell ��Q b. With respect to a limited partnership formed after December 31, 1980, the Certificate of Limited Partnership shall be filed with the Secretary of State but need not be filed of record in the office of the County Recorder/Registrar of Titles where the principal place of business of the limited partnership is conducted. The conveyance must be executed in the partnership name by one or more of the general partners. RESOLVED: That the Title Standards Committee recommends that Standard No. 91A be revised to read as follows: STANDARD NO. 91A Adopted and Approved June 24, 1977 Approved and Amended June 22, 1979 VALIDITY OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, OR RESTRICTIONS THIRTY OR MORE YEARS OLD All covenants, conditions, and restrictions created on or after April 27, 1937, by any means, including, but not limited to, a grant, deed, devise, conveyance, declaration, or will, which, at the time of examination are more than thirty years old, may be disregarded by an examiner if the thirty-year period ends prior to August 1, 1982. The thirty-year period is to be measured from the date of the document or instrument creating the covenants, conditions or restrictions, except that, as to a will, the thirty-year period is to be measured from the date the will is admitted to probate. CAVEAT: This Standard does not apply to conservation restrictions obtained under the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 84.64 and 84.65, . or to scenic easements obtained.under"the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 104.37, or to utility, drainage, access or other easements. Authority: Minn. Stat., Sec. 500.20, Repealed by Laws of Minnesota 1982, Chapter 500. Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of South St. Paul v. United Stockyards Corporation, 244 N.11.2d 275 (Minn. Sup. Ct. July 1976). Minn. Stat., Sec. 645.17(1). -In the Matter of the Petition of Turners Crossroad Development Co. for an Order Directing Deletion of a Restriction, Hennepin County, NW 2nd , reprinted in Finance and Commerce March 16, 1979. EXHIBIT A 0 LAW OFFICES REDMIS & VOTEL JAMES A. REDING TERRANCE W. VOTE 614 DEGREE OF HONOR BUILDING LAURA J. McKNIGHT SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 JOHN W.2WEBER September 29, 1982 TO: The honorable members of the City Council of the City of Eagan Dear Madame Mayor and Eagan City Councilmen: (612) 224-3841 This letter is written concerning the continuing consideration by the City Council of the proposed plat for O'Dell Addition. At the outset, I wish to express my- appreciation and the ap- preciation of -my eight neighbors who have joined with me in opposing the O'Dell Addition for the indepth evaluation and consideration of the issues involved. The city staff, Planning Commission and City Council have all been very open, considerate and cooperative in the matter. At the City Council meeting which occurred on Tuesday, September 21, 1982 concern was expressed regarding the extent of the City Council's discretion in this matter. The City Council, of course, does not want to make a decision which could later be considered to be arbitrary or capricious. In that regard, I wish to point out to the members of the City Council the language of a Minnesota Supreme Court case which was decided on September 10, 1982. The caption of the case is White Bear Docking and Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear Lake. The Minnesota Supreme Court overruled a District Court decision which found that the City of White Bear Lake had acted capriciously and arbitrarily in denying a special use permit. In finding that the City's decision was proper, the Supreme Court commented: "The setting aside of routine municipal decisions should be reserved for those rare instances in which the City's decision has no rational basis. Except in such cases, it is the duty of the judiciary to exercise re- straint and accord appropriate deference to city authorities in the performance of their duties. The mere fact that the trial court might have reached a different conclusion, had it been a member of the counsel, does not not invali- date the judgment of the City officials if they acted in good faith and within the broad discretion accorded them by the ordinance itself. In determining whether or not the City Council's decision could be based upon esthetic considerations, the court cited a previous case to the effect: f12 Page 2 0 0 "Nothing touches a citizen so personally as his daily environment. A healthful, safe, efficient, and pleasant living area to return to at the end of the day -is as essential to the well-being of a citizen as good physical conditions under which to work. Human values differ, social and economic status differs among areas, and certain legal restraints are present which require the set- ting of minimum, reasonable and uniform stan- dards, the "minimum" may be acceptable in one part of the community while in others, resi- dents may desire higher standards." We believe that the language used by the court in this very recent Supreme Court decision does indicate that the City has very broad discretion in which to act under their ordinance with respect to this platting matter, and that they are not constrained to approve an application for plat merely because it meets minimum standards. As has been pointed out by the opposition to the O'Dell plat, the standards which exist on McCarthy Ridge have existed for some per- iod of time and certainly are higher standards that the minimum standards prescribed. It is obvious that in this fully developed neighborhood the City Council would be within the scope of a reasonable decision to disallow the proposed plat because it so drastically departs from the higher standards which have been established in McCarthy Ridge. It is also interesting to note that the Supreme Court case indi- cated above involved, partially, a decision by the White Bear City Council based upon setting of an adverse precedent. In that case, the applicant wanted to place a mobile home and the City Council in denying the application indicated that to allow this would be setting a precedent for future applications. As the Eagan City Council well knows, one of the concerns of the opposition to the O'Dell plat is that it would be setting an adverse precedent for future subdivision of our area, the adverse results of such sub- division are obvious. The next item that I wish to bring to the attention of the City Council relates to Ordinance No. 52,E the Eagan Zoning Ordinance. Subdivision 24b 13 as amended in 1915 indicates that with respect to platting, all lands zoned R-1 shall be platted prior to placing any structure thereon. Both of the newly created lots under the proposed O'Dell Addition would already have structures thereon. Lot 1 would have the existing house, and Lot 2 would have the existing garage. I believe that this provision of the ordinance is further support for our position that this portion of McCarthy Ridge which is already platted cannot at this time be re -platted as the O'Dell's would propose. X13 Page 3 • • The next consideration which we propose requires the denial of the proposed plat is the current location of the existing garage. The existing garage would considerably violate front lot line setback requirements. The definition section of Ordinance 52 provides: Section 00 - Lot line - front. That boundary of a lot which abuts an existing or dedicated public street and in the case of a corner lot, it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street. Therefore, it is clear that the front lot line of Lot 2 of the proposed addition is that lot line which fronts along McCarthy Road as this is the only public dedicated street upon which Lot 2 abuts. The ordiance clearly provides for a thirty foot front lot line setback.' Ordinance Section 52.06 subd. 5c provides: No accessory building shall be less than the minimum required setback for the principal building along a public street, ---. Of course, under the definition section of the ordinance, a garage is an accessory building. Ordinance 52.06 subd. 5b provides that: "no accessory building or structure other than a fence or a temporary construction office shall be permitted on any lot in an "R" district prior to the time of construc- tion of the principal building to which it is accessory except a residential garage, which prior to construction of the residence can be used only for storage purposes pertaining to and until the completion of the main structure." We further contend that this section of the ordinance prohibits the existence of this garage on the newly created lot. Further, the garage is not being used for storage purposes pertaining to the completion of any main structure. In fact, the garage appears to be let to third parties who are carrying on some type of a pro- ject relative to restoration or reconstruction of a vehicle. On the night prior to the dictation of this letter, (the night of September 28th) there were two trucks and a car located at the garage, and there was activity in the garage until after 11:00 p.m. The proposed O'Dell Addition has presently located utility poles along the front of the newly created lots. In at least one in- stance, the utility pole and its guy -wire are in close proximity 114 Page 4 to the public street. This is an unsafe condition. The city planner and city engineer should give consideration to the move- ment of these utility poles and require this as a part of any possible final plat approval. At the extreme southwest corner of the O'Dell property, McCarthy Road makes a sharp right angle turn. Because of the uphill grade and the necessity to reduce speed for the turn, this often creates traffic problems when the road conditions are icy. In addition, extreme care must be exercised in negotiating this turn when a vehicle, travelling in either direction, meets opposing traffic. This traffic problem should be alleviated by dedication of a suf- ficient portion of the southwest corner of the O'Dell Addition to alleviate this drastic turn. We believe that inadequate attention has been directed to these safety considerations. Subdivision 3a of Ordinance No. 10.04 provides that blocks within subdivions shall not be less than 400 feet in length. The pro- posal of the O'Dell's does not meet this requirement. Section 10.06, subd. 1K of the subdivision ordiance requires that prior to final plat approval the developer shall be responsible for installing underground utility lines capable of handling a street lighting system. The administrative staff reports do not appear to require compliance with this ordinance. Finally, we wish to point out that the O'Dell's are proposing to create two new lots by their proposed plat. There is not "an existing lot" and "a new lot". There are in fact two newly created lots, and both of the newly created lots of this proposed plat should comply in all respects with all ordinance require- ments. In other words, since the applicants have chosen to attempt to re -plat their entire property, there is no use or con- dition which can be considered to be "grandfathered in" and all conditions and uses must meet the requirements of all zoning and subdivision ordinances. As the Council can see from the foregoing recitals, there are many instances in which the proposed plat does not comply with existing zoning and subdivision ordinances, and which compel the denial of this plat as presently proposed. We again thank you for your careful consideration to this matter r•:., because of the great importance which your decision will have. clr 115 Very truly yours, Terrance W. Votel 0 • Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Fifteen PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SHEFFIELD ADDITION C. Gabbert Development, Inc., for a Preliminary Plat, Sheffield Addition, Consisting of Approximately 11.36 Acres and Containing 44 Single Family Lots -- At the last regular City Council meeting held on September 21, 1982, a recommendation from the Advisory Planning Commission to approve the preliminary plat for Sheffield Addition was given consideration. The City Council had a number of concerns about the reduction in lot size and other related issues and therefore the preliminary plat consideration was continued until the October 5, 1982 meeting. The developer has revised the preliminary plat and the City Planner has provided an update of the revisions. A copy of the new report is found on pages I/7 through JZ2 for your reference. For additional information on tfiis item, ref-er to pages 75-76 of the last City Council agenda packet. If anyone has misplaced this information, feel free to contact the City Administrator's office and an additional copy will be made available on Monday. Also enclosed in your packets without a page number is a larger drawing of this addition. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the pre- liminary plat for Sheffield Addition as recommended by the APC or as revised by the developer and/or City Council. //G TO: THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY AIY•1IIQISTRATOR FROM: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 1982 • r • r m� r� r • • � � 1ws: ; At the September 21, 1982 City Council meeting, there seemed to be sane confusion between Flamed Development zoning and densities designated in the Eagan Comprehensive Guide Plan. In 1975, the City of Eagan approved the Lexington South Planned Development consisting of approximately 1,140 acres. In this Planned Development, there were 695 acres of residential development ranging from single family to multiple development. In the attached exhibit is the land use approved by the City Council in 1975. The area of concern, or the area where Sheffield is proposed, is desig- nated as an R-2 (Mixed Residential, 3-6 units per acre). In the Plan- ned Development zoning, the developer has the right to develop between 3-6 units per acre and be consistent with the Planned Development agree- ment for Lexington South Planned Development. Therefore, the developer has the option as to what density he selects between the 3 and 6 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Land Use Guide also uses the same legend as was used in the Lexington South Planned Development. This is where the confusion appears to be is in regard to the same legend in the Comprehensive Guide Plan as in the Lexington South Planned Development. The Comprehensive Guide Plan shculd be used only to guide development where areas in the City have not been zoned or if there is a proposed zoning change, the Com- prehensive Guide Plan should be used to guide the development toward the overall plan that the City is trying to implement. In reviewing the Eagan Comprehensive Guide Plan, Chapter X, Page 6, Paragraph H defines the re- lationship between Comprehensive Guide Plan and zoning. Enclosed is this portion of the Coiprehensive Guide Plan for your review. The second concern regarding Sheffield Addition which was expressed at the September 21, 1982 City Council meeting was in regard to the small single family lots. Even though the developer is within the density allowed in the Iaxington South Planned Development, the City Council still has the option to approve the detailed plan. It is staff's understanding that the Council has the right to reammend that the developer be allowed small single family lots, twin homes or duplex, or townhouse to be constructed within the 3-6 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, density should not be the issue but the design as to what type of dwelling units the City wishes to provide should be the issue to be considered. In regard to the small single family lots, the City Council indicated that 50' widths were too narrow and that 60' would be more favorable if single family were to be allowed within this general area. The developer has re- vised the detailed plan in accordance with the recanrendations of the City Council. The developer has submitted two revised plans to be considered at the October 5, 1982 Council meeting. On Plan A, the applicant is pro- posing 42 single family lots. All lots have a 60' width at the 30' setback 117 0 0 Update on Sheffield Preliminary Plat September 30, 1962 Page two line of a public street. Plan A also proposes sliding the loop road approxi- mately 25-30' south of the original plan. This allows an additional eye -brow to be provided and maximize the land which contains Lots 1-15, Block 1, Shef- field Addition. The gross acreage of the development has not changed and still retains 11.36 acres. The public rights-of-way in the proposed plat is 2.3 acres and there would be 4.64 dwelling units per net acre. The second plan submitted is just keeping the existing loop street as proposed in the original plan. The applicant increased the lot size in order that all lots would have a 60' width at the 30' setback. This plan reduced the origi- nal lots by three and the new proposal will contain 39 single family lots. The acreage is the same as the original plan of 11.36 acres, public rights- of-way would contain 1.90 acres and there would be 3.433 units per net acre. The applicant is prepared to review each of the revised plans with the City Council at the October 5th meeting. The applicant is still proposing to con- struct single family lots instead of proposing duplex or townhouse develop- ment on this particular site. If anyone has any questions regarding the revised plans or would like further information, please feel free to contact me at the Eagan City Hall. u «• ,.t- raj' T" _ /f;1/`•••S •: 2'2A 1980-1983 tta�i/ {�,�' :.,. i ii�•� :,F�E 3 ryes-1ms a-•��...e•:. f.;� .._•i'., :i 4 RBS -1980 ia+... cl Par S�l!'1 !• 'R4 "Sc 4 R4 fff �T.l,� .�• .• Biu: '\� 1i• � f��__.Ri._ j� U r Com/. CX*I:BIT Y Lexington South ,.t- raj' T" _ /f;1/`•••S •: 2'2A 1980-1983 tta�i/ {�,�' :.,. i ii�•� :,F�E 3 ryes-1ms a-•��...e•:. f.;� .._•i'., :i 4 RBS -1980 ia+... cl Par S�l!'1 !• 'R4 "Sc 4 R4 fff �T.l,� .�• .• Biu: '\� 1i• � f��__.Ri._ j� Land Use Plan 111 ■t JN.Jrl.1}dIJJyNa Ili n,ll.w\1Ni.wwy M nMy1. (OhJJMea Lm liar 08 ,.b,. Ode ©r.�.r... w OdkhM 1•.11 tlVV. N t. ?�,�""V' W? 131it „ry•r ,r,:�`.,Y t'^ �:J �__- _ ':.'Yiv' ..��•1j1+� �.'('�a'r".`.'�i'L.4r. ,V, •+r.�Y7. J.r_.:.?n`.4l-tc U r Land Use Plan 111 ■t JN.Jrl.1}dIJJyNa Ili n,ll.w\1Ni.wwy M nMy1. (OhJJMea Lm liar 08 ,.b,. Ode ©r.�.r... w OdkhM 1•.11 tlVV. N t. ?�,�""V' W? 131it „ry•r ,r,:�`.,Y t'^ �:J �__- _ ':.'Yiv' ..��•1j1+� �.'('�a'r".`.'�i'L.4r. ,V, •+r.�Y7. J.r_.:.?n`.4l-tc 0 0 H. Relationship Between Comprehensive Guide Plan & Zoning In the implementation of the Eagan Comprehensive Guide Plan, the City does not expect to initiate a rezoning of all of the areas where a conflict may exist between Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use proposals and existing zoning. There may be isolated instances where a rezoning may be initiated by the City to resolve a land use conflict that is currently adversely affecting land values. These would be the exception rather than the norm. The City of Eagan has executed several Planned Development Agreements over the past several years. There are many instan- ces where the Planned Developments show higher densities or more extensive commercial development than that proposed under the Comprehensive Guide Plan. These are not necessarily con- sidered conflicts between zoning and the Comprehensive Plan; rather, they are viewed as current trends and an expression of development patterns that the City expects to occur. Time has shown that some of the Planned Development proposals may be unrealistic in terms of density and rate of development. However, the development is permitted to occur as specified in the Planned Development Agreements. Adjustments may occur as the final development plans for the various Planned Develop- ments are approved by the City. This is expected to continue to be the pattern and the Comprehensive Plan should not be interpreted to mean that the City is going to undertake re- visions of these Planned Development Agreements. In any instance, the Eagan Comprehensive Guide Plan should be viewed as a guide as described herein and in other Sections of this Comprehensive Plan. It is expected to be utilized by the Planning Commission during the next decade as a guide in their deliberations with property owners and developers and in planning for municipal services to accomodate the pro- jected growth of the City. T& A Pl A n! rT eo Cho" ,w ,P 0 \ ? 9•,a� L Op` 4 • a n4, •P ' BY: GAeaeer DE°ELpaMENT• lac. n c+;" 0 2. a I 3 a 27 91 v � \ \ } o • 5 ~ `` 4 I 8 � 9 K t'\ 0.14 ' J v A 7 1 UEVN•F N, SCHW.9NC _J �S@ • \\ 9�e' IPNo S9e VEY0e9, Tat- gra • 1 f w x I L _.._ %5040 4ZI- i '•° o f u y/ ,°• Arooe r 423 Ilb9 J y \ y •025 v. . � '�-�— - - - � - - . �" �/e e\ 8 ^ ry Se>rene,Ee �2 e J \ a a 1 � w / ° I•y 6 i–f\ItK �0•'�. 23 Bums nw.' p.. n.o. a rrw.• w. r.w° s nm w' iv14 r ���• + LL °'rll: ID 22 21 20 19 18 I1 - lb Ir �r• au...W_N Wo., [),."I L'.vGvnllbN rl mu w., . 11.3r. k,." +) tlx.° 0e1 A.a i'0r. rrw 1) Imw w 1..5 • cio6 W. M lk J. . 3.ir5 oav J) e3: Aw, A,. 015 T. Onit wrn..0%cr.5ow 2%A{4a .rw T., All RuKcc 42 Lor5 � p., nr Vu Q.....- .1 Wm •A, 49 ougy lStU .i lr M.O. ilp•. N N I P(PrN ►.� ' BV. GAddeYr OEYS/aPmcNf, 7Nc Pd 4 Yy p w h 5� �; \ 3 • p ; Sole y,,..• ��, � w ' gaue .l0 f 9 T r,i i � ew•6 L j 1., 9.5 �Il plp: Ii LWe' I>,1beq 94o0e' , 9.ama pt4e i 11: I 15we om —1 a ro �5 , �. 1 ` F4'H ew 6%' (i• r / 5048 4- ZA I � o I ••. � Iw Re W][o: Sevrpagp tB,WBe J A n f•Ls p r h � ' p � e J 13 itoe w • I ✓ mei 101916.' Som q' eos' qme q' 'qmn' I ae_ tq``� • a Som e' 14 9boo• a B 9m•' a� �• 23 4 I 4weJ Som✓ = 76Wv 1 &be fP 22 2l 20 19 19 17 lb i�• 14 13 Aan 8w+.4ww. Iq Awa Dcgal*1 .Gawa+r..r. Q Tarn A✓r IIlL Ar4.a Q U✓na ha 1ua [.• m w. .3.475+•.^ B9 LOTS !) 16...a Fv..1 Wr• 1.90 !WI Y% LL...f 0.a Pw na T.. •. .) Maauy /•nu kra• O P+Y lw Fou .1 W. r ••j.127 aura 0 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Sixteen PRELIMINARY PLAT/LEXINGTON PLACE D. Extension of Time for Preliminary Plat of Lexington Place - The request for an extension of time for the preliminary plat of Lexington Place was continued from the last City Council meeting to the October 5 meeting. The City Council asked that a representa- tive from Orrin Thompson Homes be present to address the unsightly conditions caused by the storage and placement of construction trailers south of Cliff Road around the general intersection of Lenore Lane in the Ridgecliffe development. A representative of Orrin Thompson Homes will be present to address the issue with the City Council. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny an exten- sion of time for the preliminary plat of Lexington Place. REVISED SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE E. Consideration of a Subdivision Ordinance -- For the past two years, the City has been reviewing and working on a new subdivision ordinance that will: 1. Update the existing subdivision ordinance to provide better procedures for development on behalf of the City of Eagan and persons providing development within the community. 2. Satisfy regulations set forth by the land use planning act that required certain provisions to be incorporated into a city's subdivision ordinance. During the past several months, the City, under the direction of the City Planner, Dale Runkle, and with an extreme amount of assis- tance from our Administrative Intern Elizabeth Witt and Public Works Director Colbert, have met and coordinated a number of revi- sions for the new subdivision ordinance. Several meetings have been held with the Advisory Planning Commission, one of which was a joint meeting with the City Council. A number of meetings have been held with developers who have asked to provide input into the newly revised subdivision ordinance. The Advisory Planning Commission has approved the subdivision ordinance at its last regu- lar meeting and is recommending approval of the document as it is presented with this packet. The City Attorney's office has been present at most every review session and has worked closely with all revisions and is responsible for the coordination and drafting of the final revision which was adopted by the Advisory Planning Commission. To review a copy of the subdivision ordinance, refer to a copy which is enclosed without page numbers in your packet. The City Council has had input and has followed excerpts 12.3 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Seventeen of the subdivision review process and therefore might feel ready to act on the ordinance at this City Council meeting. However, if there are questions or additional information that is required, the ordinance could be continued until the October 19 meeting for a final consideration and adoption at that time. It would be well to consider adoption of this ordinance during the month of October so the subdivision ordinance can be included as a chapter of the ordinance codificaiton which will become effective during the month of December, 1982. The City Administrator asked the Administrative Intern to provide a summary of some of the more controversial items that were discussed during the subdivision review. For that infor- mation, refer to pages JZT through 1-L&_. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the sub- division ordinance as redrafted and recommended for approval by the Advisory Planning Commission. • •; TO: City Administrator Hedges FROM: Intern Witt DATE: September 30, 1982 SUBJECT: Subdivision Ordinance In order to implement the Comprehensive Plan, the City was directed to "adopt a new Subdivision Regulations Ordinance to replace an ordinance that was adopted several years ago." Staff commenced work on revision of the Subdivision Ordinance at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. By the Spring of this year the ordinance was ready for the closer scrutiny of Planning Commission members and interested developers. The Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance throughout the Summer months. In between those meetings Staff met with developers on four occasions to work out areas of concern. Much of the discussion involved clarification of language to make sure the intent was clearly understood. There were areas of concern which precipitated a great deal of contro- versy and these are outlined below: 1. page 18 (6) Timing of parkland dedication. The City wanted the option of requiring dedication of park land to be made before the final phase(s) of the subdivision is approved. (There is a possibility that a project will not be completed, leaving the city with an inadequate park site to be developed.) Developers state that they are purchasing land as they progress through the phasing and cannot afford dedication before the entire project is platted. Because the City has the choice of what land will be dedicated, it was recommended that dedication occur with phasing. The City has the option to buy any remaining land not formally deeded, but necessary for the park site to be developed as planned. 2. page 25 (12) Cul-de-sacs The City does not favor cul-de-sacs primarily because snow removal is more difficult and time consuming than on loop or other streets. However, cul-de-sacs are desirable from the developers' viewpoint and they prefer the City not regulate against them. The Planning Commission suggested the City adopt a neutral position in framing ordinance language re cul-de-sacs. 3. page 25 (9) and 29 (Subdivisions 12 $ 13.) Street Design Standards, Solar Access and Environmental Protection. These are areas which were removed from the ordinance and placed in a City Handbook. The developers felt that gas 0 0 Solar Access and Environmental Protection are still in a state of flux and should be excluded from stringent ordinance requirements at this time. The City did not want to suggest "minimum" street surface widths as too often "minimum" becomes "standard" and that is not the intent. Therefore, street right of way is shown in the ordinance and surface widths/other design standards will be addressed in the City Handbook. 4. page 32-33 (G. 1,2,3) Payment for Public Improvements. The issue causing most controversy is the percent of cash escrow, letter of credit or performance bond which must be paid before improvements can be installed. Currently, Eagan requires 0% on City - installed improvements and 125% on developer - installed improvements. Last year the figure was 20%. In these economic times there are more tax delinquencies and Eagan has had to foot the bill for an indefinite length of time for these del- inquencies- almost $1 million in 1982. The developers maintain that requiring such large amounts up front will wipe out all but the large developer. The Planning Commission directed staff to survey other communities to see if we could substantiate a case for one figure over another. Bursnville strongly encourages developer -installed improve- ments and requires a letter of credit for 125% of the total cost. Woodbury requires 20% and is not covered beyond the first year.. Through a developer's agreement, Bloomin& asks for 10% of the total cost in a letter of creditand, as each lot is sold, 125% of the cost is turned over to the City. Tom Colbert, in discussing"reasonable" figures, estimated that 60% of the total costs over a 5 - year bonding period would protect the City suf- ficiently. He was agreeable to an eventual reduction in the financial guarantee to 20% of the original cost. Tom felt there could be periodic reductions from the 60% to the 20% but that these would be decided on a case-by- case basis. (APC Chairman Hall directed staff to come up with an incremental reduction with the figures written into the ordinance but Tom felt more comfortable with "periodic reductions." izb 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Eighteen MILL RATE/PAYABLE 1983 0 F. Establish Mill Rate Certification Payable 1983 -- The Director of Finance and City Administrator have prepared the final tax levy as recommended for 1983 which totals $2,967,861. A copy of the breakdown of proposed special levies and consideration of the general fund and major street fund is enclosed on page / a $ . The special levies, including debt service levies and generaT pro- perty tax levy, create a net mill rate reduction of .467 or approxi- mately � mill payable in 1983. This is based on an estimated as- sessed valuation figure of $163,817,806 and a fiscal disparities distribution of $150,000. This proposed mill rate is the amount that was presented to the City Council at the last special budget meeting held on September 30, 1982. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the general property tax levy payable 1983 as presented and authorize the City Clerk to certify the same with the Dakota County Auditor upon its approval. 12. �7 0 Liability Insurance Proposed Special Levies Matching Funds Programs LOGIS - 1983 Community Health Services Bonded Indebtedness 1972 Park & Fire 1973 Park 1979 Fire Station 1982 Municipal Expansion Equipment Certificates 1981-1 Certificates 1981-2 Certificates Sub -Total Sub -Total Sub -Total Sub -Total Increased Industrial/Commercial Development Sub -Total Property Tax Abatements Sub -Total Unfunded Accrued Liability of Public Pension Funds PERA Volunteer Firefighters' Relief Assn. Sub -Total Shade Tree Disease Control Sub -Total GRAND TOTAL DEBT SERVICE GENERAL FUND TOTAL Proposed General Lev GENERAL FUND MAJOR STREET FUND TOTAL GRAND TOTAL TAX LEVY $ 35,902 $ 48,290 26,400 $ 73,800 36,300 49,500 62,100 $ 39,500 45,600 $167,055 $ 18,375 $ 12,633 106,386 $ 54,154 $ 35,902 74,690 221,700 85,100 167,055 18,375 119,019 54,154 $ 775,995 $ 306,800 469,195 $ 775,995 $2,021,987 169,879 $2,191,866 $2,967,861 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Nineteen NEW: BUSINESS PEACE REFORMED CHURCH 0 A. Peach Reformed Church, Building Addition/Site Plan on Nicols Road -- The pastor of Peace Reformed Church has approached the City Planner regarding a plan to expand the present church facility located on Nicols Road by adding a general meeting room and an area which can be used for activities related to the church. Due to the lack of public facilities zoning for the existing church and the fact that they have purchased property across the street for a new church facility, the City Planner and City Administrator felt that there should be some direction given to the staff and representatives of the church as to how the question of expanding the existing church should be handled. For additional information on this item, refer to the City Planner's memorandum and drawings found on pages 0 through 133 . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To provide direction to the City staff and representatives of Peace Reformed Church as to what applications and procedures should be followed regarding their expansion plans. 1a9 C TO: • I` 17DGE CITY ADMINISTRAT. ••• DALE M3NKLE, CITY PLANNER DATE: 11 30, EXPANSION CF PEACE M RU-ORMED CHURCH 0 Staff has been contacted by the Pastor of Peace Reformed Church in regard to expanding the present church facility to add on a general meeting roan and an area which can be used for activities related to the church. As you may recall, Peace Reformed Church has purchased the area on the west side of Nicols Road for a new church facility. However, it is staff's un- derstanding that the church wishes to add on to their present facility in- stead of building a new church on the land on the west side of Nicols Road. It is more economical for the Church to make an addition instead of breaking ground for a whole new facility. The request from the Pastor is in regard to would the City allow an addition to be constructed at the present site. In reviewing the zoning of the parcel, the Church property contains Lots 12-16 and Lots 20-24, Block 6, Cedar Grove No. 4. The zoning of the pro- perty is presently R-1, Residential Single District, and would not allow a church facility. Therefore, staff cannot allow any additions or permits for this new construction. Before the Church prepares detailed plans for this addition, the Church is requesting that the City Council review the issue and possibly make a recommendation as to whether they would or would not allow an addition to the Church. Staff is suggesting that if the Council elects to allow the Church to build an addition to the present structure, that the Church submit an application and rezone the property from R-1, Residential Single District, to P, Public Facilities District, which would then zone the property in accordance with the present use. Once the property is zoned properly, the Church would then be able to obtain a building permit through staff if all of the ordinance requirements are met. If ordinance requirements are not met, then the Church would then have to apply for the proper variances in order to obtain a build- ing permit. It is too early for staff to know if the Church will be able to meet all the ordinances at this time and staff would then perform the detail- ed review when the site plan has been submitted for the building permit re- quest. If the City Council would give• an indicati allow the addition to the Church, the Church ceed with the detailed plans for the addition 130 1M I co whether they would or would not would then know whether to pro- , or other possible alternatives. _.�__- -I �•' � �_-_ meq-.. _y,- I y � IT - I .kr.!% � ..: ^�' p 8 �'✓off, /l . /' a II V I I I I I I 11 I „ I I I ' zz. 1 - e . 99 r [b 'a, � �I � r _' � ^ I I � I i � i i Y I I I 1 ' I v 1 �.. I � r � \ . •1 � � � IT 4 t l'1 �� e � ''Y'I.,.:I I,�:1 'J `I'`I•..I '��I _'�'1 L�aS - S I r.� - � . I 9 I _ 1 r k. ) Y - �I II1 �1. I I �...rti F.� J ��y i�SI ]• 4\Art��+ftjv7�ir, d'r� {�`I '7.'S rl lye,., ,Y X1-1 , �� li . �. I �- {ir I e- R' • 14w r i " T L fi� o f Yi r- -� u 14 „j, {, ''{��,,..``•'� 1L' �a•r`' i, S'�'%'Ss'•tnY1A y�. SSBI �' I �n I y� [ i. ...:] .P7i%S-r.. f li:'� 'Sd IS^yf-'S?'it[>41=tYe� • �{�. t''y'T�b\Vp .�.. �i ✓itR�Pi..w.7:o,i A ''rNN ..'fYi y. - ..;e.-- 0 0 'PAN ILI, : or -,vu-f -J-3 :;3 r _ 18� 17 16 0 15 0� 14 -� i6 I7g.......L ..0 1354 j 75 1 75 I ! 4'8°30- °• ��Os. 1 91 65 .. T-20 EAST o 75 75 85 =' a- 165 : 1000 4r; A0 3 Y" - -- --- _ - 313.35- .-.. ---- - 1 395 0-- O -�o v Q `- 81B EAST - - 395 0-- J 8 00 43 d3d5 75 5 g(c'9 +: 2qo °r:t .. C -. 3c `.. d91f A-i°'09:x.. 2�7°0-' 2 a' O r. ' 75 -30 30 '614 'g2V 9S ti 42 o o G N 17 1 N 18 IN 19 O CI 31ir1 J. 17 N N - 20 0 ir,;//yam �s N1 21 h .�� S ga - 7 . 23.08 i- 120 .-.... EAST -___ -311 n 9374 57 ti0 v ^ 16 20 s H ^ N W Iso 23 Q I^ 19 O �!m Ts 24 M 15 21 z �1-` 18 o N . C ^ z w�`ti 2 N I __ __ da6.. 17 _ 28.3] ��3 G:r2o�, 122.12 -__ _ I "3760 0 1 EAST_ G_28° 3 ^ 14 22 r C5 -- `1 H:3p08r ay�2a0., 16 �• Z ^ ' '' 311 O 121.G3 ---a '4.12 so'15' � 7j r �� �S IS 0-66 ^ 13 tV 23 n i 01l,N _ 15 :�; 16 LLL 0 C 2 ^ 12 24 "'1� es:sa �s I7 SRr� h ' 7s 120.67 „ 'p r9i JS _ F n is 19 m 14 �o - ^ I I 25 Z v 13 >s 19 120.19 4 _ 35 3a5;q• ,1;yo3 11 w ^ 10 : b C 20 M sgsj'ra.. 12 7 Q Z 26 ^ �E uST� `�-28°�-200� r.> Ns2Oa- � Q 11971 3 6.. 35 y_ ,`•'] :N ^ Ip 30 .30 4=28c341 10 o4i 9 - 27 n n 5 58 C �g2o✓ >c rt¢`0 - Q c Z ^ "' 2 3 `"I r0' a� AiOc a3 �S 9 j 119.22LLJ ^ 8^ EAST a S '• I f 28 ^ 20 2 4 W �� so o' j LLQ —___ I ry P o/ ` ry 118 74 -.. 22 ^ P 25 to ^ 7 7 Tgs Z3'rs•W ' O �: � �� 118.2621x a $ 33 5 03'32.. s1 O T wow 63n - - - 26 • 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Twenty BLACKHAWK OAKS PRELIMINARY PLAT & REZONING B. Paul R. Larson for Rezoning from A to PD to Allow a Townhouse and Single Family Development and Preliminary Plat for Blackhawk Oaks, Consisting of Townhouse and Single Family Lots -- A public hearing was first held regarding the Blackhawk Oaks rezoning and preliminary plat on July 27, 1982. The recommendation to the City Council by the APC was to deny the rezoning and preliminary plat as the result of that Advisory Planning Commission meeting. The City Council considered this item at their August 17, 1982 meeting and requested that the developer review the possibilities of de- veloping the parcel as single family vs. townhouse and single family combination. The applicant prepared some revisions, one of which is a total single family development, and presented the same at a new public hearing held by the Advisory Planning Commission at their meeting on September 28, 1982. The Advisory Planning Commis- sion is recommending approving of the rezoning and the preliminary plat which now consists of 12 townhouse dwelling units and 10 single family lots. For additional information on the City Planner's report and revised plans, refer to pages 135' through 7 . For a copy of the APC action, refer to pages through JAIL ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the recom- mendation of the APC to approve the rezoning and revised preliminary plat of Blackhawk Oaks. 3`fi C, E TO: CHARLES HALL, C[LAIRMAN AND THE ADVISORY PLANNING CCP1MIS.SION FROM: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 1982 RE: UPDATE ON THE BT.ACKHAWK OAKS REZONING AND PREf.IMINARY PLAT As you may recall, the Advisory Planning Camnission held its first public hear- ing on Blackhawk Oaks rezoning and preliminary plat on July 27, 1982. At this meeting, there was a great deal of input frau the surrounding neighborhood in regard to the townhouse portion of the preliminary plat road access and access to Blackhawk Park. After a great deal of discussion by the Advisory Planning Commission, the Comnission reoamoended to deny the rezoning and preliminary plat on a 4-3 vote. This recamiendation then carried to the City Council for their review. Prior to the City Council meeting, the applicant met with the Park Camlittee to discuss the issue in regard to access to Blackhawk Park. After an onsite inspection of the property, the Park Committee requested that a right-of-way be dedicated across Lots 7, 8 and 9 in order to provide a possible future road right-of-way and access to Bladdk&k Park.. With the recomendations of the Planning Couumi.ssion and Park Committee, the applicant prepared four additional sketches trying to address the concerns of the Advisory Planning Commission and Park Counnittee and presented these four sketches at the August 17, 1982 Council meeting. The City Council reviewed the original preliminary plat which was submitted in the July 21, 1982 staff report along with the four alternative sketches. The City Council reviewed the sketches and indicated that even though the density of the development was low, the neighborhood opposed the townhouse development and suggested that the developer review the possibilities of developing this parcel as single family vs. the townhouse and single family combination. Not taking any action on the plat, the City Council directed the applicant to go back to the Planning Canis- sion with a revised plan taking their cam ants into consideration. With the direction of the City Council, staff has scheduled another public hear- ing for September 28th for Blackhawk Oaks preliminary plat and rezoning to a planned development. In working with the applicant, it is staff's understand- ing that in light of the eannents and direction of the City Council, the appli- cant still wishes to pursue the original plan which consists of 16 townhouse units and 9 single family lots as their first choice to develop the property. Therefore, staff has enclosed a copy of the staff report dated July 21, 1982 for your review. The applicant has submitted an alternative plan which is enclosed with this manorandum. The alternative plan contains 10 single family lots and 12 townhouse units for a total of 25 dwelling units or a net reduction of 3 dwelling units frau the original plan. 135 0 • SMEMBER 22, 1982 PAGE TM The preliminary plat still contains 12.7 acres of which 8 acres would be single family development, 3.4 acres of townhouse development and 1.3 acres of right- of-way for the connection of Riverton or Silver Bell Road. The gross density on the revised plan is 1.73 dwelling units per acre and 1.93 dwelling units per net acre deducting the road right-of-way. The net density change between the two development proposals is .47 dwelling less on the revised plan as compared to the original plan of July 27, 1982. The difference between the original plan and the revised plan is the applicant is proposing to increase the single family units by one lot and decrease the townhouse development by 4 units. Therefore, a net decrease of 3 dwelling units is being proposed. The other change in the alternate plan is that the developer has shifted the townhouse units as far away from the existing single family resi- dence to the south. Presently, the applicant is proposing that no townhouse unit would be within 240' of the southerly lot line. Therefore, hopefully this will provide as much of a buffer area as possible but still trying to obtain the townhouse concept in their overall development proposal. The last item staff would like to address regarding this alternative proposal is that the developer is not proposing to dedicate a public street or rights-of-way for a public street along Lots 7, 8 and 9. It is their conclusion that they have provided adequate access to the lots mentioned above and that they feel there is no need for an additional right-of-way for a public street. The developer has indicated that they will provide a trail easement along Lots 7, 8 and 9 to pro- vide pedestrian access or bicycle access to Blackhawk Park. They feel strongly in not dedicating rights-of-way for a public street. This issue between the Park Committee request and the developer's request will be addressed at the City Coun- cil level. The applicant has prepared a third exhibit which is more'in the direction of which the City Council recommended at the August 17, 1982 Council meeting. This pro- posal consists of 21 single family lots and the loop connection of Riverton Avenue to Blackhawk Road. There are 3 single family lots which could be further subdivid- ed creating wts 22, 23 and 24 which could be further subdivided when the street north of this property is developed. At the present time, the developer is show- ing a half right-of-way for the street providing access to Blackhawk Park. It is staff's understanding that if this third alternate is the plan that is approved by the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council, the applicant or developer would not continue with the development process and just withdraw his application for the development request. If the original plan which was submitted in July is approved, or if Alternate A is approved, the conditions listed in the July 21, 1982 staff report should apply to the original plan or Alternate A. Sincerely, Dale C. Runkle City Planner DCR/jack )3 66 Fm -7- TZM PLATAIWA . .. lf.T A, 'SN" II AaA I6.0 Ac '.' fALILTIIL9 ARG •i AL, fl1ALIC KOW. I•a A,, I LOAN Acm WA 11ru mAr/ I II•'s -LVAn�A[Af 4w Ra W. ILL MLvb OW K Y}aWIW Wit O I 4p LSI Lar O �r II �r l Lor W ' OLYK4AWIt • FlA/I Am II DLK4IAWK PIC{ aarnu AmrttlV / S, Y5. LR 9' LST d I' ler 6 Law. Paatll1lnY• M A w ua w n walk S.. IA4V, .ML PKELIMIN4KY MAT 6LAGK1IAWK OAKS ADDITION Lor 7 ll Y mwK IAAK ' ler L aLGy GCLLC M1bJWrt4/ F htw all wl l 60=3 c .hp. . RIS J W Oo l O TON C AltA me { T"Q F.SMWK RCQYIROG 1. 69W.L'Q.W41T' TTM D[ OrMaNT L s. to .MWK. 64 Eaq RS N."", O GWLDI 4- M." I.1 T1M• nId d Dava LOA1YNI T...I P..I F,q ew.0 w wv SK•TW r6AM EA 9 • CITY OF EAGAN APPLICANT: PAUL LARSCN LOCATION: PART OF THE N'k OF THE NVx OF ME NE;, SECTION 20 EXISTING ZONING: A (AGRICULTURAL) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: JULY 27, 1982/JULY 29, 1982 DATE OF REPORT: JULY 21, 1982 DALE C. KZME, CITY PLAM ER The first application submitted is a request to rezone approximately 13 acres from A (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development District) to allay 16 townhouse units and 9 single family lots in part of the A of the M. of the NE3d, Section 20. ane second application submitted is a request for preliminary plat approval - Blackhawk Oaks, which would contain approximately 13 acres and consist of 16 town- house lots and 9 single family lots located in the N31 of the NE; of the NEk, Section 20. ZONING AND LAND USE Presently, the parcel is zoned A (Agricultural) and would only allay one dwelling unit per 5 acres. The Comprehensive Land Use Guide designates this parcel as R-1 (Residential Single District) with a density of 0 - 3 dwelling units per acre. Tb:e proposed develogurent plan has a net density of 2.39 dwelling units per acre, which is within the R-1 density range, even though the development plan is not all single family dwelling units. In reviewing this development plan, the area to the south is developed as single family lots. Riverton Drive has been stubbed to the property in the southeast corner to provide access to this particular parcel. ane area to the north is still relatively undeveloped. Blackhawk Park abuts the parcel on the east and Bladchawk Road borders the property on the west. She applicant has proposed to continue Riverton Drive as a curvilineal street, which would terminate at and make a four-way intersection at Blackhark Road and Silverbell Road. The proposed street plan provides good public access for this particular parcel and allows additional access for the people in the Cedar Grove area to the south. The applicant is also proposing to provide a private drive which would be a loop street tying in from Blackhawk Road to the extension of Silverbell Road or Riverton Drive. This private drive would have two accesses and provide good traffic circulation for the sixteen taunhouse units. It is Staff's understanding that the private drive will be a J39 9 • CITY OF EAGM PAUL IARSCN JULY 27, 1982 PAGE TWO minimum of 24 feet wide and there is a rulz union of a 20 foot setback for this private drive. The townhouse portion contains 3.96 acres of which .36 acres is contained with the private drive. The net acres for the multiple is 3.6 and would have a'density of 4.4 dwelling units per acre. The lot coverage in the townhouse portion is 11.3%. The single family lots will contain approximately 7.64 acres and will contain 9 lots. The smallest lot within the single family area is 18,700 square feet, which is well in excess of the minimum lot size for an R-1 (Residential Single District). Presently, there is an existing house on the 13 acre parcel. This house will be platted as Lot 1, within the single family district. The greatest concern on the development proposal is in regard to providing adeauate easertents for the extension of Riverton Drive or Silverbell Road on the north portion of the plat. It is Staff's understanding that the applicant will have to work with the adjoining party owner to be able to provide adequate road right-of-way to provide access to this development proposal. If this right-of-way cannot be obtained, the developer will have to redesign the plat which would have to shift the road southerly to have the sixty foot right-of-way within the parcel under consideration at this time. If approved, the preliminary plat should be subject to the following conditions: 1. That a planned develcPment agreement and development agrement be executed prior to the final plat approval of Blackhawk Oaks. 2. A homeowner's association and by-laws shall be reviewed by City Staff prior to final plat approval. 3. A landscape plan shall be submitted and reviewed for the townhouse portion of Blackhawk Oaks and an adequate landscape bond shall be provided and not released until one ,year after the landscaping has been conpleted. 4. Adequate right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City with the final plat in order to provide a sixty foot right-of-way for the extension of Riverton Drive or Silverbell Road extension. 5. No more than 16 townhouse units and 9 single family lots shall be allowed for this development proposal. 6. The plat shall be subject to the park dedication fees as requested by the Advisory Park committee. 7. All easements shall be dedicated as requested by City Staff. DCR/bar ENGINEERING MCCNMENIDATIONS B. Internal storm sewer lateral facilities will have to be extended to its ultimate outlet into Blackhawk Lake. 9. Internal private drive shall be a minimum 24 feet in width with concrete curb and cutter. 10. All required public rights-of-way, including the extension of Silverbell Road, rust be aomdred and dedicated as a part of the final plat or prior to the installation of streets and utilities. 11. A 40 foot half right-of-wav should be dedicated for Bladkhacak Road as a _Dart of the final plat. 140 9 0 MEMO TO: ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION, C/O DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER FROM: RICHARD M. HEFT1, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BLACKIIAWK OAKS ADDITION The Public Works Department has the following comments to offer for the consideration of the above referenced plat: UTILITIES Sanitary Sewer of sufficient size, capacity and depth to handle this proposed development exists both to the west on Silver Bell Road and to the south on Riverton Avenue. The existing sanitary sewer on Silver Bell Road would have to be extended approximately 185 feet east to the west boundary of this proposed plat. This would involve crossing Blackhawk Road. Water main of sufficient pressure and capacity to handle this proposed development exists both in the northwest corner of this proposed plat at Blackhawk Road and on the southeast corner of this proposed plat on River- ton Avenue. Consequently, no extension of either trunk or lateral water main will be required to serve this proposed development. Internal lateral distribution of sanitary sewer and water main will then have to be installed, according to City standards, to provide individual service to the proposed development. GRADING/DRAINAGE The general topography in this parcel consists of hills and depressions with the general drainage being overland towards the north and Blackhawk Lake. Approximately ninety (90) feet of fall exists from the northern edge of this parcel to Blackhawk Lake. The preliminary grading plan calls for draining a low point along the northern boundary of this parcel to ponding area located between Lots 1 and 2. This ponding area would appear to be constructed in existing low area. From this ponding area, the overflow would pass under the road through a culvert and outlet in the northwest corner of Lot 9. From here, it would have to flow overland across Lot 8 and north until it reaches Blackhawk Lake. As can be seen by the attached subdistrict storm sewer drainage map, the entire parcel isointended to drain north to Blackhawk Lake. Consequently, this drainage should have little, if any, effect upon Blackhawk Lake, especially since it has a positive storm sewer outlet as constructed under Project 297. My concern arises from the pond overflow being discharged on Lot 9 and flowing across Lot S. The pond overflow should be directed from this proposed development via storm sewer. All storm sewer con- struction can be accomplished without any additional trunk or Lateral lines. /+t 0 0 Blackhawk Oaks Addition Engineering Report Page Two EASEMENTS & RIGHT OF WAY A sixty (60) foot right of way would have to be dedicated for a portion of the street located within the boundaries of the preliminary plat. It should be noted that a portion of the proposed street lies outside of the preliminary plat. This portion of the developer, either street right of way should be acquired by the by means of purchase or easement. This should be prior to the submission of the final plat. A ponding easement would have to be dedicated for the proposed internal ponding area located between Lot 1 and Lot 2. In addition, all necessary internal utility easements required for the internal utility distribution would be compulsory at the time of the final plat. STREETS Access to this proposed development would be Blackhawk Road along the west and from Riverton Avenue on the south. ,p4 Private drives in Blackhawk Oaks Second Addition shall be a minimum of g feet wide with concrete curb and gutter. Furthermore, the dead end private drive should be looped back into Riverton Avenue, maintaining a 75 foot setback from Blackhawk Road. Should the developer wish to dedicate these streets, they must be increased to the standard 60 foot requirements for public right of way. ASSESSMENTS All costs associated with providing internal streets and utilities to service this development would be the responsibility of this development and the adjacent property to the north based on proportionate frontageand benefit received. TRAILS & SIDEWALKS Since Riverton Avenue will not be a collector road, no trails or sidewalks will be required. In addition, no sidewalk will be required along Black - hawk Road for the reason that sidewalk is in place along the west side of Blackhawk Road. I will be available to discuss any aspect of this report with the Planning Commission at their meeting on July 27, 1932, Respectfully submitted, Richard M. Hefti, P.E. Assistant City Engineer '1010 D j• Z' ld1LL.V�,1=PIe�si l . �Oa]' --• .A 21 ' - — + _�� /l/PIi71I Ij l) I/d:/ II ./ �_ ~� 1 r .o\� .� •. \/1��I L/- •._-':•j\—HT1 I.1 IJ—� ' /i,' ; 0-INS E•,T_� E B `��T e�. ,..,, ....•:. a-] - YC/1AD19 • : N� J F / __�` I �L \y J/ i I I u.�W!.�.'J•�D-'� • •' :/ I. _ _ (((/��� • 7 _ _ _... e .-_. � c-1a �p; � 0 1] I•I:I11 1 7 _ ✓ ' Gam; 1_ / .I`^r 1 •. .24% ;'/I .I�;{�J \ I I 0.21 L \+�,I 0.2A .•�:�..To� E'B �E19 - -..;.a J� 1�-17 + '1 - •� ••�F / 0' r xl 1 �. C_1BY�. C q D...P-..• / E'I! I E•.4 11 V ' - 1 //. _ - I :/�•�r \ B� -IO.B _ Irl 1 .,• /-Z •" j 4. nX-�/�, �K/J . -3;yn �j�� � yy}l `/I.t'�[�/r-ij �J9D! �' �.,9-7 �I1//\• �li \ \r.jls• iQ`-127 f :,Io>1 JI� �/'•' �I.''�1. JpIl,l/h/��./ ��-B`!•� I ` 1 `I;I y—( 5'1}41R1!21 1!)9f1]340 v 0-1rJ, I 0i.�2]�\7/1J10-�2133� J I4E`).L- ,=Et-.•1. 16 \20.28- ❑ 10-- .h/I3] �Q 4WI ,i1 —SI J-2' % 1/ —�ell I : -e' 11 5- A-55 °-sB _ 1r L_._\-.� � 1r. \ t F' 39 it 7 /A-10/ J-22 ( +;a�'r ° I l 6�..4L - 11 W rn 'tae — i+ 10� N ' - ( J•8 -8 1 \ G-1. 1 n-13 'tY '3 tlr' ull JF _y :: r\-- I J-2] 1 7 '// // /fl JM 4:R I +I 1J �\ f 1 J•Is' / (I J-34 \ LS ®R l+/F�.BIJi I:: `'' \ '62 ; + J-21 -/ N 1% �— I J-]r a Is n Lel, I 7 . %/ -• ' C,. S!s /1 a \4,L-12ljI L t / i -'\ J-S J 7 I - V 1 /� J.]! .Ir+.'1 ,[, a y\' IJI/Ifirl �/�+1 -1. �I` I e'i` Ii -C F 1 2at i( c J-362t� 1� II a .it 114 C1y�°�i1 �l .%.� jJ 1{] r B(�r - ` _ I.1.4.(11: y �l_� _ 1 _ i r F� I /T \ /I 1 1'.',� ` I "�.. Ai•lJ1JJ-•�( r r ) (, \ \f• f ] 1 :��qJ-671 I/ I IL� \_ I-_� ,/ �� l I // !S •/ B B i1 _ ✓ti;, T'+] 1 �f/lL\ °-i! �.4� �/JLv/JBI` 4�L' ' SII J A- J..r .., ? /j/l�p/ClSriB-]J✓�B] -2S/I ;l/B'�Bi ,:lII lli! J�I1J 9`p1p1 �•� +III.,4 I 11 I I' fdqI u L-7 k 11 ( J-3J2.'`+Jo ,) �) �J I Yr -II++(/A 11 J g.r J +s1 L�7fFI - .,73/J )r�J:.a10 ' la\ // ( Blb l +!.s. 1 �"�-I `�.yL� \ •� J I •• h r t Ibc�1b L-13 _ 6-2s fj}-7 r-.. ]z inti YI. 71,III� 111, J n�l 1 r� A 67 A4B 1/i' \ - Il _ L•21 L-21 rr 1i... \Il ]�)/A.]A rg 27. '7' �_1. -'7�.5ry. y 1... / -,I ` L•I -Y ` �fli .0 + 1 I 1 L'SN L•123 IL-p�(\\\} J e. -i / �Y I .t✓. IIZJ �k 1 I . , u. - al�{u�:\ I , Il'II �., r �l al n-BA _'.Zl+.i."' I (+l'`�/1y�� 4 I L•:3� sJ.rF:�•. /^_v ]rl iaj - 1 a+�� ��.1�j;{l, •�' r /,j � �9 L�Z1`J; L �L.31 l : YJ . ,. 4,,. J '_NJ1u! Il �. 1 _ IL; 1 L_ ' nra:.12'�t�B- ���� {' 1. � II•I II I .•.� I,:..Y .... � /./i 1 / I aACr,AA K OAKS AVD W TOTAL RAT AW M.Af k �NtN LW LT AKM UN k W1i1/li ARA }ft♦. _..lbeut 1A111r s WAY L41 A. "IINm /dLRi TaF TAN1- "T. I.ff ' r WM/AGC Lift R'LW !.M PRELIMINARY PLAT llAr ww mw N .LY4. VL glrINM• N 1 M} 4 Nt. A wA4, NNiYY DLACXWAWK OAKS ADDITION 4[v M LYW MYrY far fMLN11L YW. • 0 IL1We4F VYpSc.IL N4TGWNNi4f IbKTbY TRY.. Rp .IMIJ...ru. R1W.. 4wW ea.MU Mwru •rt..� O.tuY YNM.u. urs- wr / '•• R Sv M O !{Y KIMWK . V bf Y .1e IteY -IL 4.T.. r l . WAY W Y.• w.Y W.- � � i YYL I•b' Ny:Y/ FKCLIWN4Rr LJTILIr1E5 LAfUllr .. . CLACk14AWk oaks ADDITION O, T ,.. . .K. Y. O.Y..e.Y. G•,. ' I A3ll7n 3lddv � E. N- L—IM-2. -- +d r A qr.4• , d ra n I a - li•.s'� ♦� '•I4 ^.-• V HN /jU211 - to - '• � Iha ;. a a � Ira t I J 0.4 ..; meb pal �. D y Ira y v vi mil Na; 0Td pu 00 _ UU i ;••' 2i• .! hti. 11 1 Si\\ `l100Y3V; ;J 0 APC Minutes September 28, 1982 0 BLACKHAWK OAKS - REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT The public hearing regarding the application of Paul Larson for rezoning of approximatley 13 acres from A (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development) to allow 16 townhouse units and 9 single family lots, and preliminary plat approval of Blackhawk Oaks Addition was convened by the Planning Commission. Mr. Larson was present as was Larry Frank, Planner, on his behalf. Mr. Runkle explained the position of the Council which returned the application to the Advisory Planning Commission to allow the applicant to explore other alter- nates in light of the objections from single family property owners adjacent to the property. Three plans were presented to the Council. Mr. Frank re- viewed the objections and each of the three proposals including the original proposal submitted to the City. The Park Committee has recommended access be provided directly east of Silver Bell Road to Blackhawk Park along the north line of the property and Mr. Frank indicated that the developers opposed the suggestion because there is an existing access to the Park further south. Peter Stalland appeared on behalf of his father, who is the owner of approxi- mately 3 acres to the northeast and recommended the park access along the north line .be required because the Stalland parcel is basically landlocked except for a private easement across Cy Barry's property. Mr. Barry allegedly has agreed with the half right-of-way on the Barry property, according to Mr. Frank. A number of property owners were present objecting to the proposal except for single family homes. Mr. Frank reviewed the proposal with 12 townhouses located generally on the northwest area of the property, and one single family lot at the southwest corner, which the applicant is willing to submit for approval by the City. Mr. Frank indicated that the intention is to have low profile earth sheltered type homes on the property and therefore, it should not be objectionable to the single family owners to the south. There was discussion concerning the method of assessing for the Park road improve- ments on the north line, and it was noted it must be done on the basis of benefit only. Mr. Krob favored the new plan with the 12 townhouses and was concerned about the engineering feasibility of the access road because of terrain features along the north line. It was suggested, however, that the City require dedication of an easement along the north line in the event that it is not used, it would be vacated at a future time. Generally, the Planning Commission members favored the new proposal, including the 12 town homes. However, member Wilkins favored the single family use of the property. McCrea moved, Krob seconded the motion to recommend approval of the rezoning applica- tion from A (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development) with underlying Agri- cultural zoning, and for preliminary plat approval of the proposal, including the 12 townhouse units at the northwest area of the property, subject to the following conditions. 1. That a planned development agreement and development agreement be executed prior to the final plat approval of Blackhawk Oaks. 2. Homeowner's association declarations and by-laws shall be reviewed by city staff prior to final plat approval. 3 /+% 0 0 APC Minutes September 28, 1982 3. A landscape plan shall be submitted and reviewed for the townhouse portion of Blackhawk Oaks and an adequate landscape bond shall' be provided and not released until one year after the landscaping has been completed. 4. Adequate right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City with the final plat in order to provide a sixty foot right-of-way for the extension of Riverton Drive or Silver Bell Road extension. 5. No more than 12 townhouse units and 10 single family lots shall be allowed for this development proposal. 6. The plat shall be subject to the park dedication fees as requested by the Advisory Park Committee and that bike trail be dedicated at minimum of 25 feet as requested by the City along the North line. 7. All easements shall be dedicated as requested by City Staff. 8. Internal storm sewer lateral facilities will havae to be extended to its ultimate outlet into Blackhawk Lake. 9. Internal private drive shall be a minimum 24 feet in width with concrete curb and gutter. 10. A 40 foot half right-of-way should be dedicated for Blackhawk Road as a part of the final plat. All voted in favor except Wilkins who voted no. CLARKSON PLACE - PRELIMINARY PLAT The hearing regarding the application of Elmer L. and Dorothy A. Scott for preliminary plat approval of Clarkson Place consisting of 3.88 acres with two commercial lots was considered by the Planning Commission. Dorothy Scott was present and there were no objectors to the proposal. She stated that there would be no repair work, but the property would be used only for storage. After discussion, Wilkins moved, Rrob seconded the motion to recom- mend approval of the application, subject to the following. 1. An easement be granted to Lot 1 from the southerly access on Lot 2 to provide access. 2. If Lot 1 is sold for the storage of refuse trucks and a building is constructed for this storage, no other construction or development shall be allowed on these lots until such time that utilities are provided to the site. 3. The access to Lot 2 shall be graded and a slope approved by the City Engineer and the disturbed area should be seeded in order to prevent soil erosion. 4 /+y 0 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Twenty -One BRITTANY FOURTH ADDITION FINAL PLAT C. Final Plat Consideration for Brittany Fourth Addition (William Nolan)/Replat of Outlot A, Brittany 1st Addition -- On August 18, 1982, the City Council formally approved the preliminary plat for the proposed Brittany Fourth Addition. All conditions placed on that preliminary plat have been complied with. If Project #364 for the installation of trunk water main is previously approved on the October 5 agenda, this final plat would be in order for consideration and approval by the Council. A copy of the final plat is enclosed on page 1S1 . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the final plat application for Brittany Fourth Addition (William R. Dolan) and, if appropriate, authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. /J O BRITTANY 4TH ADDITION r, r, • I� Y • 0 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Twenty -Two OAKWOOD HEIGHTS FINAL PLAT D. Final Plat Consideration for Oakwood Heights (Countryside Builders, Inc.) -- That part of the NW4 of the SE -1-4 of Section 26 lying north of Wilderness Run Road and east of the Wedgwood Addition -- On May 4, 1982, the City Council formally approved the preli- minary plat for the proposed Oakwood Heights Addition. A copy of this proposed final plat is included on page 1,y73 for the Coun- cil's information. All conditions placed on the preliminary plat have been complied with and the final plat is now in order for consideration for final approval by Council action. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the final plat for Oakwood Heights as presented by Countryside Builders, Inc., and, if appropriate, authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. ,s a N OAKWOOD e axon[ .al Y4wxr ur • rcwne 1N11Iww[xr roan T., I,It "K Ill wuu, yI., B1 a Ip YNIJ»IL A, III °L,RIpn [Wt» YYL m L \� ii1lN s v1Ylli.1 Mp P yI L CIM p t4NYA AIA ZI {N HEIGHTS I,WIIOIIWKi.NIilWll[.{V Lrn,11Ii111M!4I1.4Y�[.14 [911.01,1, IN[.r I .1. M. 4rWr°IYr b✓al IIWII•lor rY HILI II«Yl YIIMf ML I•Y • .. MII.°, MYIII[ IMpr11111e11M II M WrnlY °! W4u M. N NIIiw,.0Y1••pIAN. I1:.11If111N1 1 »IWIel14ur111111urulY. ar•MY.r ar Ir• IMI Mn °( IM 1°IM NI( II IM 1wIN111 DYrYr II W IIW M, IYMII }I, Mn1 ll. Irlou fan°r. XlnauY Wr11Y• w Iu11�1 W iINNpIW rutllll/4•aurw� rm IwIN w OYIAO M1411f •N tl Will WI°I IM Wlwm lu 1Y F°Ila. le/ KIII YI le rw°r °Y I—'. . Ipfn 1 11 rnylT °»1° 1111. ,Y MIMr' rural wli LMI}1!101nb_i_! WIIpN. IM.11 el°nY°II [wW n. N° .. IbM Waunw Y p "'IAe/ 111 I. ......... ° I M MII ° M M1mnli tllbN I_b1 °I_.._ . Il9Mw I° MW°° nWn°I °NI IIMII I141M1 91111.1 Ylu IIY I5541NIN N IYIII.[^, • Ynl.. llwY IT Mrl.. [°rpn°Iln. »N wv°Ii NrY Hrunw I. w \1991 LI 11111191 °11111111M 111 [I/Y11.. °III lu 9 l f—al. l II _ Ir101—_ ,n NIY°° wrYl 1111 IM."TOI 1W111 '$14111M. ° Atm." trnewl lnlnMYY. I°° .VIN 1YY IrYWI l° Y "I" W illlAm 11 9. °u9 [°IW.IIMI M.—, YI JUM 1. [YIN. IYr Yeu° Ilrl°.... _bY el.... ... , 1 A ____• 1.1111111..NI.... IIS. !ILII II.Mt 9119. AN I4» 11[91414. WIMPS m W.10A 1WI».11Cmis MIIWI If JIX-WI IMIf1.11 • »unwY 4rpnvw, pr9•r e1 4p I1414IN1n ILIu[Llf, r unr....r hsnl NMMII. 9,. Y MRwN WWI0 1. IWIM" In9wnt «, off., N wt.. N YbIM N W M IM -Ii ufd19I411V{IIfW(i.M7i[.,1 ....°•—q[—t�r•jlm a'G�i•II Ti«[orp.°iii�. r..., Iru[, t4ny, »lwewu noel el Wlm.pu nr fvnlulm MJrn Lown or I« NINe1M an11°tnt rl .nlal«W Nle.. ul. er IN ierpmTM, YTih�R«ZTa —1/rtsfTiEwit-Lrl»4firw'L¢1xx55°tIRI6tEIN11TIh�JeriirT'': an [IY.... .... .... NMF AT IIIIa01.1 4Ir�nNM [Hera f[unr 4 TIN N Mr.uM 14x11°1111°I A. tftl1.44,WIX.fTIN[C. wlll.ry'a:•Ilir..IrA. ATlY Mu11111N W I.awlO IY.W 4e(fl%.11• N [�w•Ib upm µ1.1.i InN uu I L•n .urn. W b11� W nlny ti«••N WY wni ren n I.Yt4 W Ie11IP.M.YI yl. Nn 1• . wl t ro u u -N il...,o .i�Aul.~ w W 1111. °r .11 m, i.W ran•«• : • w m.mM�r�•[[a 1 [.. _�".: ,• ,�. N • . r MII[ Np+•P ° tllmuu ma• Ir ra:..lx: rna.Taa,:.w. .1 . »IIRIT, 1111.111. wn.r..lY m. 4u Own a IM r°r.Olro Nmryr'. [Y.nnW YI «Illa11N11 «r.n ro w« _.l.r .. _._.. _._. L_Ir IY. x. 1x91 Mruner Ig1iiY��--_� nV111n.•el ry [wunM 191.11_ 0a 411 paN .. Y W—M LI, 11».... I. 'I"[..,1 °r IIYn, nlralwu W.•M YY !III. [III tM[IL 4 [WM. »I W WII NIW16 Y Wll.r }II, 4•n °I n1AF.1•. 1,11 Inl° !III Nl lna •uprnw Inl1 __NI el _________ . IM_ 11: --_---- lnnl a 1111419/ tW1 W W In.rn .uM 41. �m1 Nom__... . lu}�. ImMn ewF, ml:u—reser rar:n�--.-_ »M•LI N11LIr Wt 41 IYIM°t N• IIIN N 14 Nen. N 14 (Nvl} WwYr 1°r mer.. .n ! ul , If__JI [rriy M.am SUNDE LAND SURVEYING IN, 0 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Twenty -Three PROPOSED NUISANCE ORDINANCE E. Consideration of a Nuisance Ordinance -- For several months, members of the City Council have discussed the possibility of con- sidering either a good neighbor ordinance or nuisance ordinance for regulatory enforcement within the community. In contacting the League of Minnesota Cities and other communities, the city is unable to track any other entity that has a good neighbor ordi- nance. However, many communities do have an ordinance that addres- ses many of the good neighbor issues that have been raised before the City Council in the form of a nuisance ordinance. The Adminis- trative Intern, Mike Johnson, has researched the model nuisance ordinance that was prepared by the League of Minnesota Cities and reviewed a number of nuisance ordinances of surrounding communities. For a copy of the model nuisance offered by the League of Minnesota Cities, refer to pages J,55' through /40 . Since there were some clauses that differed in various ordin cnaes found in surrounding communities, those additional clauses were singled out by the Ad- ministrative Intern and are found on page 16 1 . The City Council may want to consider the incorporation of some of those clauses into the model ordinance. The nuisance ordinance is being presented to the City Council for review and consideration. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the nuisance ordinance as presented and/or modified or continue the ordinance for further consideration. (S -T r ;DRAFT' CITY OF EAGAN DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE # AN ORDINANCE DEFINING AND PROHIBITING NUISANCES AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION The City Council of Eagan ordains: SECTION 1. PUBLIC NUISANCE DEFINED. Whoever by his act or failure to perform a legal duty intentionally does any of the following is guilty of maintaining a public nuisance, which is a misdemeanor: (1) Maintains or permits a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures, or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any con- siderable number of members of the public; or (2) Interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage any public highway or right-of-way, or waters used by the public; or (3) Is guilty of any other act or omission declared by law or this ordinance to be a public nuisance and for which no sentence is specifically pro- vided. SECTION 2. PUBLIC NUISANCES AFFECTING HEALTH. The following are hereby declared to be nuisances affecting health: (1) Exposed accumulation of decayed or unwholesome food or vegetable matter; (2) All diseased animals running at large; (3) All ponds or pools of stagnant water; (4) Carcasses of animals not buried or destroyed within 24 hours after death; (5) Accumulations of manure, refuse, or other debris; (6) Privy vaults and garbage cans which are not rodent -free or fly -tight or which are so maintained as to constitute a health hazard or to emit foul and disagreeable odors; (7) The pollution of any public well or cistern, stream or lake, canal or body of water by sewage, industrial waste, or other substances; /5 -ti- 0 0 (8) All noxious weeds and other rank growths of vegetation upon public or private property; (9) Dense smoke, noxious fumes, gas and soot, or cinders, in unreasonable quantities; (10) All public exposure of persons having a contagious disease; (11) Any offensive trade or business as defined by statute not operating under local license. SECTION 3. PUBLIC NUISANCES AFFECTING MORALS AND DECENCY. The following are hereby declared to be nuisances affecting public morals and decency: (1) All gambling devices, slot machines and punch boards, except as otherwise authorized by Ordinance #70; (2) Betting, bookmaking, and all apparatus used in such occupations; (3) All houses kept for the purpose of prostitution or promiscuous sexual intercourse, gambling houses, houses of ill fame, and bawdy houses; (4) All places where intoxicating liquor is manufactured or disposed of in violation of law or where, in violation of law, persons are permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquor, or where intoxicating liquor is kept for sale or other disposition in violation of law, and all liquor and other property used for maintaining such a place; (5) Any vehicle used for the transportation of intoxicating liquor, or for promiscuous sexual intercourse, or any other immoral or illegal behavior. SECTION 4. PUBLIC NUISANCES AFFECTING PEACE AND SAFETY. The following are declared to be nuisances affecting public peace and safety: (1) All snow and ice not removed from public sidewalks 12 hours after the snow or other precipitation causing the condition has ceased to fall; (2) All trees, hedges, billboards, or other obstructions which prevent per- sons from having a clear view of all traffic approaching an intersection; /56 -2- 0 0 (3) All wires and limbs of trees which are so close to the surface of a sidewalk or street as to constitute a danger to pedestrians or vehicles; (4) All unnecessary noises and annoying vibrations; (5) Obstructions and excavations affecting the ordinary use by the public of streets, alleys, sidewalks, or public grounds except under such con— ditions as are permitted by this code or other applicable law; (6) Radio aerials or television antennae erected or maintained in a dangerous manner; (7) Any use of property abutting on a public street or sidewalk or any use of a public- street or sidewalk which causes large crowds of people to gather, obstructing traffic and the free use of the street or side— walk; (8) All hanging signs, awnings, and other similar structures over streets and sidewalks, or so situated so as to endanger public safety, or not constructed and maintained as provided by ordinance; (9) The allowing of rain water, ice, or snow to fall from any building or 'structure upon any street or sidewalk or to flow across any sidewalk; (10) Any barbed wire fence less than six feet above the ground and within three feet of a public sidewalk or way; (11) All dangerous, unguarded machinery in any public place, or so situated or operated on private property as to attract the public; (12) Waste water cast upon or permitted to flow upon streets or other public property; (13) Accumulations in the open of discarded or disused machinery, household appliances, automobile bodies, or other material, in a manner conducive to the harboring of rats, mice, snakes, or vermin, or the rank growth of vegetation among the items so accumulated, or in a manner creating fire, health, or safety hazards from such accumulation. /57 -3- 0 0 (14) Any well, hole, or similar excavation which is left uncovered or in such other condition as to constitute a hazard to any child or other person coming on the premises where it is located; (15) Obstruction to the free flow of water in a natural waterway or a public street drain, gutter, or ditch with trash or other materials; (16) The placing or throwing on any street, sidewalk, or other public property of any glass, tacks, nails, bottles, or other substance which may injure any person or animal or damage any pneumatic tire when passing over such substance; (17) The depos'iting of garbage or refuse on a public right-of-way or on adjacent private property; (18) All other conditions or things which are likely to cause injury to the person or property of anyone. SECTION 5. DUTIES OF CITY OFFICERS. The (city engineer, street superintendent, police department, or other designated official) shall enforce the provisions of this ordinance relating to nuisances affecting public safety. The police department shall enforce provisions relating to other nuisances and shall assist the other designated officer(s) in the enforcement of provisions relating to nuisances affecting public safety. Such officers shall have the power to inspect private premises and take all reasonable precau- tions to prevent the commission and maintenance of public nuisances. SECTION 6. ABATEMENT. Whenever the officer charged with enforcement determines that a public nuisance is being maintained or exists on premises in the city, the officer 'shall notify in writing the owner or occupant of the premises of such fact and order that such nuisance be terminated and abated. The notice shall be served in person or by certified or registered mail. If the premises are not occupied and the owner is unknown, the notice may be served by posting it on the premises. The notice shall specify the steps to be taken to abate 1513 -4- 0 0 the nuisance and the time, not exceeding 30 days, within which the nuisance is to be abated. If the notice is not complied with within the time specified, the enforcing officer shall report that fact forthwith to the council. There- after the council may, after notice to the owner or occupant and an opportunity to be heard, provide for abating the nuisance by the city. The notice shall be served in the same manner as notice by the enforcing officer is served and shall be given at least ten days before the date stated in the notice when the council will consider the matter. If notice is given by posting, at least 30 days shall elapse between the day of posting and the hearing. SECTION 7. RECOVERY OF COST. Subdivision 1. Personal liability. The owner of premises on which a nuisance has been abated by the city shall be personally liable for the cost to the city of the abatement, including administrative costs. As soon as the work has been completed and the cost determined, the city clerk or other official designated by the council shall prepare a bill for the cost and mail it to the owner. Thereupon the amount shall be immediately due and payable at the office of the city clerk. Subdivision 2. Assessment. If the nuisance is a public health or safety hazard on private property, the accumulation of snow and ice on public sidewalks, the growth of weeds on private property or outside the traveled portion of streets, or unsound or insect -infected trees, the clerk shall, on or before September 1 next following abatement of the nuisance, list the total unpaid charges along with all other such charges as well as other charges for current services to be assessed under Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101 against each separate lot or parcel to which the charges are attributable. The council may then spread the charges against such property under that statute and other pertinent statutes for certification to the county auditor and collection along with current taxes the following year or in annual installments, not exceeding ten, as the council may determine in each case. /S 9 _5_ 0 SECTION 8. PENALTY. Any person convicted of violating any provisions of this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both, plus the costs of prosecution in either case. Adopted this day of , 198 . ATTEST: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF EAGAN By: By: City Clerk Its Mayor Date Ordinance Adopted: Date Published in the Legal Newspaper: /6o -6- 0 0 ADDITIONAL NUISANCE CLAUSES FROM SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES (1) In order to prevent the spread of communicable disease, the use of common drinking cups in public places, public conveyances and public buildings is hereby prohibited. (2) The distribution of samples of medicines or drugs unless such samples are placed in the hands of an adult person. (3) Abandoned, unattended or discarded iceboxes, refrigerators, or any other container of any kind which has an airtight snap lock or other device thereon, without first removing said snap lock or door from said icebox, refrigerator or container. (4) Annoy, injure or endanger the safety, comfort or repose of the public. (5) All indecent or obscene pictures, books, pamphlets, magazines and news- papers. (6) Look, gaze, stare or peep in the windows of a house or place of dwelling of another with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the household thereof. q Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Twenty -Four EXTENSION OF TIME - E.L. MURPHY I.R. FINANCING F. E. L. Murphy/Extension of L. Murphy Trucking Company is their preliminary resolution financing. For a copy of the sion, refer to a copy of /L 3 Time for I. R. Financing -- The E. requesting a one-year extension for regarding industrial revenue bond reasons for their request for exten- the attached letter found on page ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny a one year extension of time on the industrial revenue financing for E. L. Murphy Trucking. /6 2L September 27, 1982 Mr. Tom Hedges, City Administrator CITY OF EAGAN 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mr. Hedges: HEAVY SPECIALIACARRIER M NATIONWIDE SERVICE TRUCKING COMPANY P.O. BOX 43010 • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55164 Phone: (612) 454750 E. L. Murphy Trucking Company respectfully requests the City of Eagan to grant us a one year extension of our preliminary resolution regarding industrial revenue bond financing. This request is based on the fact that our decision to go ahead with our original plans to expand our trucking facility became uncertain in terms of the present economic conditions and recent federal legislation which has deregulated the trucking industry. We sincerely appreciated any consideration you may give to this request for an extension of time. Yours truly, E., L,--MURU'R•P.H/Y TRUCKING COMPANY Richard F. Miller Vice President, Finance RFM/rmc X63 "MURPHY MAGIC NATIONWIDE" Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Twenty -Five CONTRACT 82-13 A. Contract 82-13, Approve Plans & Specifications/Order Advertise- ment for Bids (Brittany Fourth Addition & Safari Reservoir - Trunk Water Main) -- With the submission of the petition for the installa- tion of trunk water main for the Brittany Fourth Addition, the developer waived his rights to a public hearing and requested the preparation of detailed plans and specifications in hopes that construction might be performed yet this year. Detailed plans and specifications were prepared simultaneously with the feasibility report and are also being presented to the Council for consideration on October 5. Therefore, if the public hearing is closed for Pro- ject 364 and the project is approved, it would be appropriate for the Council to consider approving the detailed plans and specifica- tions and ordering an advertisement for bids for the installation of trunk water main within the Brittany Fourth Addition. In addition, the staff is recommending that the installation of the trunk watermain to service the Safari 4.0 MG water reservoir be included under this contract so that the best possible price can be obtained. By combining both projects under one 'contract, it is felt that the most economic current prices can be obtained. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve plans and speci- fications for Contract 82-13 (Brittany Fourth Addition & Safari Reservoir - Trunk Water Main) and authorize the advertisement for bids with a bid opening to be held at 10:30 a.m. on October 27, 1982. STOP SIGN PETITION - SIGFRID STREET B. Stop Sign Petition, Sigfrid Street at Sequoia Drive -- On September 21, a petition was presented to the City Council re- questing the installation of a stop sign on Sigfrid Street with the intersection of Sequoia Drive. Enclosed on pages6(� through Z67 is a copy of the petition as received and a ocation map re erencing the property owners who signed the petition. In re- viewing this intersection and the traffic volumes associated with it, it is staff's recommendation that this request for stop sign be denied. This recommendation is based on the following facts: 1. There is very limited traffic volume associated with this intersection as only approximately 27 property owners use this intersection from this subdivision. 2. The only individuals using this intersection are those people who live in the area and should be well aware of the neigh- borhood children in this area. 3. At the time of school bus loading and unloading, the school bus provides for the required stop control at this inter- section. 19 9 0 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Twenty -Six 4. Because of the proximity of this intersection to the stop sign on Pilot Knob Road and "T" intersection at Lodgepole Drive, the speed of the traffic through this intersection is well within the legal speed limit. 5. Staff has concerns about potential objections from property owners on Lodgepole Drive that are expected once the stop sign is installed. If stop signs are to be considered for this intersection, the staff recommends that they be installed on Sequoia Drive, controlling the north/southbound traffic through this intersection. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the petition and approve or deny the installation of stop signs at the inter- section of Sigfrid Street with Sequoia Drive. 165' �J I/we, the undersigned hereby install stop signs on S at the intersection with 0 PE 1TION �r, the city Council of the City of Fagan to I/we, request this installation for the follaaing reasons: q 1. The, -r ra -ft „ J10a 1�'.� ,O 'top 2- 0 vNZ(i- v� �e<sfi3O� 1 S Z S C ,' I had 3. ,r kvv-..e, a -to I Ck L-Id/K rk-, I* 4. JndE jd" I I/we request that the City Council take this petition request under consideration at its earliest opportunity and that we be informed as to when it is scheduled so that we may appear in person if we so choose. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. NAME (Please print and initial)': ADDRESS Lam/ ffm LY, !j'.7 i %- b/I mt4 4'ONxasa f"'. aro w GON)l 380 LOW e. 3AItla---b�' Vit' % ;Q.:""� •`; ::'::';: �:::: , ':b' t IMI ...,.. ! . '..' ! y • .Y, W Y•YY )•��` S IIr�. C -VE t1 _ NEFELM ° 1 iLaar�VI ■ •.�♦ „�± ` , 3A;1/0 A'I'L -.,1.. p 1 • f i YI ` ao�e• • p y f V�_ ` Oda bo cc F �s,: r ° ,. =N01:11' ab'=--�5 � ■ �`'�.,1"�� ;� Jif �i o ! "'� I{zi__ a .�e.Xu ! t .p R:t.e ,T", ° �'—_-•. ,..,.. a ' / ' ••� V � I• f , e r' pu1_.. .IX17X � p r :{.r p I r... ■ !i '.f t) • 1 w f I. ♦ G Y• cu Z,,. : ! ♦,% + .Y ll / • / ,_{}ice° , pI}, • • �'/�•r f • I Int^• s y\. 0. \\ ♦ I , ate' P f':_F,•+ +. 1 • 1 t �•�� ,•' I1. • i s f. �'�• r.l, fy I 0. L 10 -47 Pea • • `I � `{� 1,0 : L •`'f+111�111 a _.• �� � �' i 1 . J11 � t 9 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Twenty -Seven 0 STOP SIGN REQUEST - FEDERAL & WASHINGTON DRIVES C. Stop Sign Request, Federal Drive & Washington Drive -- Enclosed on page is a copy of a letter the City received from the representatives of the Comsery Corporation which is presently leasing offices from the Yankee Square Building I located in the northeast corner of Washington Drive and Federal Drive. Because this is not a formal petition from affected property owners, there is no location map or formal petition form available at this time. On pages Iby through 171 are copies of the street map referencing the intersection reque—stere for consideration. With the completion of I -35E, Federal Drive will become a minor collector providing an access to the Blackhawk Hills Addition due to the elimination of the Englert Road connection to Pilot Knob Road. Therefore, this will become the major throughway providing road access to Section 16. Presently, Washington Drive, east of Federal Drive, provides access to the Yankee Square commercial area. West of Federal Drive (Surrey Heights Drive) is presently an internal resi- dential street servicing only that subdivision. Therefore, present- ly, the major traffic movement through this intersection is from Federal Drive onto Washington Drive. Because of the present "T" intersection, the engineering department can understand how traffic movement can be confusing. Therefore, based on the present configu- ration of this intersection, the existing traffic movement patterns and the anticipated future extension of Federal Drive, the staff would recommend that a stop sign be placed on Surrey Heights Drive and Washington Drive at its intersection with Federal Drive. This would allow Federal Drive free movement through the intersection. This would also help to discourage any commercial traffic from Washington Drive proceeding west into the Surrey Heights Subdivision. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the letter of concerns for stop sign from Comsery and approve or deny staff's recommendation for stop sign control at the intersection of Washing ton Drive with Federal Drive. 1618 • September 13, 1982 Mayor Bea Bloomquist City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55123 Dear Mayor Bloomquist, Applications Softwar• Industry Consulting Educational Services Data Center Services _ Comsery Corporation 1385 Mendota Heights Road Mendota Heights. MN 55120 (612) 452-7770 I would like to request that the City of Eagan provide a stop sign(s) at the intersection of Federal Drive (street) and Washington Drive. Last Friday (September 11th) there was a 10-52 accident with injuries, involving one of our employees. In addition, I have had numberous reports of near accidents (misses) at that intersection from several employees. Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. S• cer , Patrick T. O'Malley Facilities Administrator xc: Mr. Gerry Faehn Mr. Jack Arvig PO/lp/03 169 e•smn ChiraAn • Clrvdund • D.U. • /lnunnn • /a. An,r/vs • M1linnrapnlG • PhiW Iphlu • Pimburxh • Sr.!suis • ,San Franrixo . S_nurrsr • N'innon S./nn /)ublin, /rr/anA lan6,n. Fntla.d .1lydm G!v. 3f,,, • To.unro. Cu nu de �NKEE Fd. No. 28 ) I PUBLIC IWORKS -� GARAGE 1 m, le mac! J > BL ACKHAWK V, nc� J * DEERW NEL/ N IRK / 1RK / / I / RD, / A, r r� i I—J_ CKHAWK I I J HILLS RD. I I 1 I I I 2 II I II 1 I C/TY HALL .41000 IDGE V agPEPARME, zcrL /CE Oli a Ir w Y III'd W(' `' t � L _— /T Z IPEERCLi ,�jLWINDCF pvE. r1 740 i 1- 0 s �1 J C 1 I � ¢ pCOUNTY P H °I 4 N. Ev ?/4 S ECO T6 9 T. 279.1 x HIGH I J•°•CHIS ME\Gy,; • SES • • { w OYILOT - V s [ ♦ • = 6' a e x x r nose lrtn —v NO 28 x i :w.su: aam � it ;e.•.%. .a na ; ( YANKEE W- a� DOODLE R fC i CFNT�� x :N s SEGOui w� o »m .eMn ui[ n,m-,,I, __-- a,rnw..j• naw z 1-w axax u., N<SJ< sa P a a SpN" e�aa f�SStN • ri1 1 , P y +„•oaei �x vf'J9• :o DRIVE 21• e a a a•e J' •lq'. are. aerla�+•u f s I x • a x s Oy I �R.ecel:<ntt.[�el j SroP S/F„rs 24 p01 Agenda Information Memo October 1, 1982 Page Twenty -Eight GRADING/EXCAVATION PERMIT - SHEFFIELD ADDITION D. Grading/Excavation Permit, Sheffield Addition (Gabbert Develop- ment, Inc.) -- If the preliminary plat for the Sheffield Addition is approved under Old Business of the October S agenda, the developer would like to receive consideration for approval of a grading/excavation permit to allow him to begin his grading opera- tions prior to receiving final plat approval due to the quickly diminishing construction season. The grading plan has been approved and all insurance certificates and performance bonds have been satisfactorily submitted. With all things being in order, the staff is recommending the approval of this request. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the appli- cation for a grading/excavation permit for the Sheffield Addition (Gabbert Development Addition). Gtomon a'aA City Administrat 1-7Z.